Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Coventry Corporation Bill,

As amended, to be considered upon Tuesday, 21st April.

Bognor Regis Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Traction Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 21st April.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

EXCHANGE (WALWORTH ROAD, SOUTHWARK).

Mr. DAY: asked the Minister of Labour whether any progress has been made respecting the sheltering of unemployed persons waiting outside the Walworth Road (Borough) Employment Exchange during wet weather; and whether he can make any further statement with reference to the proposed erection of a new exchange for this district?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have already explained to the hon. Member that it is not practicable to provide an outside shelter at the present premises. Active search is being made for a suitable site, and a new building will be erected as soon as such a site is found.

Mr. DAY: Is the Minister aware that these out-of-date and insanitary exchanges are a disgrace to the authorities, and can he say why this one has taken such a long time to rebuild?

Mr. BROWN: I cannot argue that question now, but I have told the hon. Member that we are concerned about the site.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that the Minister has given that answer for some considerable time, and can he say what is the difficulty of finding a site in this neighbourhood?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member well knows that there is difficulty, and I will tell him when I have any definite information.

Mr. MAGNAY: Is not the purpose of these questions by the hon. Member to show that:
Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge,
for the benefit of the lion. Member's research department

NON-MANUAL WORKERS.

Mr. LATHAN: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is the intention of the Government to give effect to the majority recommendations of the Insurance Statutory Committee on the remuneration limit for insurance of non-manual workers; and, if so, when he proposes to take the necessary action?

Mr. E. BROWN: I cannot add to the reply given on 2nd April to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. LATHAN: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the reply to which he has referred contains no information whatever, and am I to understand that he has no word of encouragement for nearly 500,000 people who have been waiting patiently for years for something to be done on the lines of the recommendation made by the Statutory Committee?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member is in error in saying that the answer does not contain any information, because it told the hon. Member for East Birkenhead that the matter was under consideration. The hon. Member will understand that we have only just received the report and that it must have the necessary thoughtful and careful consideration that the interest of so large a body of people require.

Mr. LATHAN: May we take it that the urgency of the question is recognised?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member understands that the report is there, and he knows the issues at stake. We are actively examining the matter, and as soon as I am able to do so I will make the necessary statement.

WOODEN BOX AND PACKING CASE MAKING INDUSTRY.

Mr. LOFTUS: asked the Minister of Labour the numbers and percentage of unemployed in the British wooden box and packing case making industry in the years 1931, 1933, and 1935?

Mr. E. BROWN: The average numbers of insured persons, aged 16 to 64 years, in the wooden box and packing case making industry, recorded as unemployed in Great Britain in the years 1931, 1933 and 1935, were 3,280, 2,990 and 2,263, respectively. The average percentage numbers unemployed in those years were 26.0, 24.4 and 20.3 per cent., respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROYDON AERODROME (GERMAN EMPLOYES).

Mr. LEWIS: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many German subjects are employed at the Croydon aerodrome?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): My right hon. Friend has made inquiry and is informed that a German company, which operates an air service between Germany and Croydon, has in its service at Croydon six German subjects.

Mr. LEWIS: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider it might be desirable to prohibit the employment of the subjects of any foreign State in British aerodromes, having regard to the importance of those aerodromes in case of hostilities?

Mr. LLOYD: I understand that British subjects are probably employed at foreign aerodromes where British air transport companies are operating.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIS-LICENSED PREMISES (CLUBS).

Mr. A. HENDERSON: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the cases where brewers are no longer complying with their own agreement notto

let for club purposes premises the licences of which had been extinguished on the ground of redundancy; and whether he will deal with this kind of encouragement to the founding of bogus clubs by the brewers in the preparation of the clubs legislation which he has promised to introduce?

Mr. LLOYD: No particulars of the cases to which the hon. Member refers have been brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend. As regards the second part of the question, I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the lion. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) on 2nd April.

Mr. HENDERSON: If I send the hon. Gentleman particulars of the case, will he take into consideration the recommendation of this body of magistrates?

Mr. LLOYD: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SCHOOLS (AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS).

Captain A. GRAHAM: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the resolution of the central council of the National Union of Women Teachers, sent in their letter of 2nd April, 1936, which attempts to dissuade local government authorities from undertaking the schemes of local defence outlined in the Government's Air Raid Precautions pamphlet; and what steps he proposes to take in consequence?

Mr. LLOYD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education to a question on 23rd March last by the Noble Lady who represents Kinross and Western (Duchess of Atholl).

Captain GRAHAM: While thanking the Minister for his answer, may I ask him if he is to take no steps to maintain his authority which is being openly and impudently flouted?

Mr. LLOYD: Anybody is at liberty to express an opinion in this country, but people are also entitled to set what value they like upon the opinion expressed. The fact is that this resolution has not had very much effect, because the local authorities are co-operating to a very satisfactory extent.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Is it not a fact that these people are a body of no importance or substance whatsoever?

DEFECTIVE SCHOOL PREMISES.

Mr. DAY: asked the President of the Board of Education what action he now proposes to take, either by way of legislation or the introduction of regulations against schools which do not comply with the board's standards of either educational or sanitary conditions, so as to enable children attending those schools to receive an adequate education under suitable conditions; and whether he will state the number of schools still on the black list and consider publishing a list of them?

The MINISTER of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): On the evidence at present before me, I do not consider that further powers beyond those already possessed by the board and local education authorities, under the Education Act and the Code of Regulations for Public Elementary Schools, are required in order to deal with the problem of defective school premises. I would invite the hon. Member's attention to paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the board's Circular 1444, which was issued in January last, and of which I am sending him a copy. The number of schools still in one or other of the categories of the board's list of schools with defective premises is 1,078. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by publishing the list.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the proportion of schools which do not comply with the Board's regulations?

Mr. STANLEY: Not without notice.

Mr. DAY: Can the Minister give any reason why he refuses to publish the black list so that people may know what schools they are?

Mr. STANLEY: I gave the reason, which is that I did not think any useful purpose would be served by doing so.

CHILDREN (DANCING PERFORMANCES).

Mr. DENVILLE: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that many theatrical producers in this country feel unable to employ child dancers by reason of the difficulties involved by the present

licensing arrangements; and whether, before extending these licensing arrangements to cover dancers up to the age of 16, he will investigate the whole matter, in consultation with the Royal Academy of Dancing, in order to ensure that nothing shall be done to prevent the development of British as opposed to foreign dancers?

Mr. STANLEY: The existing licensing arrangements were carefully considered by Parliament in 1932, in connection with the Children and Young Persons Act of that year. No extension of these arrangements to cover dancers up to the age of 16 is at present contemplated and the second part of the question does not therefore arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOL BETTING.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: asked the Home Secretary whether any estimate has been made of the approximate annual profits now accruing to the operators of systems of pool betting in this country; and whether any consideration has been given to the possibility of taking steps to divert part of this profit for the purpose of providing football and sports grounds in congested urban areas?

Mr. LLOYD: I have no information which would enable me to hazard even a. guess as to the profits of pool promoters. Legislation would be required to give effect to the second part of the question, unless the promoters decided voluntarily to divert a part of their profits for these purposes.

Mr. THORNE: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the decision of the Leeds Recorder yesterday about pool betting?

Mr. LLOYD: No, Sir.

Mr. THORNE: Look it up, then.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (CENSORSHIP).

Mr. MESSER: asked the Home Secretary when the last inquiry into film censorship took place; and whether a report is likely to he issued?

Mr. LLOYD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 10th February to the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans).

Mr. MESSER: May I obtain from the Under-Secretary any information as to when the report is likely to be issued?

Mr. LLOYD: I could not say at present.

Mr. MESSER: asked the Home Secretary whether he will take legislative steps to prohibit the exhibition of films in this country showing acts of cruelty to animals and also those films in the production of which there has been cruelty to animals?

Mr. LLOYD: No, Sir. I think this matter is best left in the hands of the British Board of Film Censors and the cinematograph licensing authorities.

Mr. MESSER: Is the British Board of Film Censors an impartial body in this matter?

Mr. LLOYD: I understand that the practice of the Board of Film Censors is to refuse to pass any film reasonably supposed to be produced by means which necessitate cruelty, or by means of restraint involving cruelty.

Mr. MESSER: Do not those words permit a coach and four to be driven through them?

Oral Answers to Questions — BLIND PERSONS.

FIRE PRECAUTIONS, FACTORIES.

Mr. MESSER: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to an outbreak of fire in a building used as a factory for blind workers; and whether he is satisfied that the ordinary regulations are adequate in the case of blind people?

Mr. LLOYD: My right hon. Friend has received a report which shows that adequate means of escape were provided as required by the London County Council, who are the authority responsible in this case, and that special additional precautions were prescribed and taken, including steps to familiarise the blind persons with the means of escape. The arrangements were such that all the employés were quickly outside the building.

DOMICILIARY ALLOWANCES (SCOTLAND).

Sir JOHN TRAIN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any and, if so, which local authorities in

Scotland under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, have not yet made arrangements for the provision of domiciliary allowances to necessitous blind persons; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): Yes, Sir. The local authorities concerned are the county councils of Dumfries, Kincardine, Orkney and Shetland. The Department of Health are urging these local authorities to submit schemes for their approval at the earliest possible date.

Sir J. TRAIN: Can the Under-Secretary of State say whether it is the intention of the Minister to insist upon a uniform rate for these allowances?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Efforts are being made to secure a greater degree of uniformity. I am aware that there is a wide difference between the allowances at present granted.

Mr. GUY: Will my hon. and gallant Friend endeavour to persuade the local authorities to adopt a uniform minimum of 27s. 6d. per week as recommended at the meeting in Edinburgh?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No, Sir, I cannot undertake to accept a particular rate, but, as I said in my earlier answer, efforts are being made to get a greater degree of uniformity in the allowances at the present time.

Mr. MESSER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that 27s. 6d. per week is working very effectively in the county of Middlesex?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (HERTFORD HEATH).

Mr. MATHERS: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the housing conditions existing at Hertford Heath and of the delay on the part of the Hertford Rural District Council to carry out their declared intention to build suitable houses in the area to provide for the occupants of condemned houses; and whether he will take steps to cause the position to be remedied without further delay?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am aware that there has been some delay in commencing the


erection of the houses at Hertford Heath for which arrangements have been made by the district council. I understand that this delay has been due to technical difficulties in the construction of an approach road to the site, but that building operations are expected to start in the next few weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE (COASTAL TRADE).

Captain P. MACDONALD: asked the Minister of Health whether in view of the fact that during the first two months of 1936 the net tonnage of foreign vessels engaged in the inter-port trade of this country increased by, approximately, 100 per cent. as compared with the corresponding periods of 1934 and 1935, he will advise local authorities both to increase their use of coastal shipping services and to accord a voluntary preference for British ships?

Sir K. WOOD: I will consider my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion in consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Captain P. MACDONALD: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that during the first two months of 1936 the net tonnage of foreign vessels engaged in the inter-port trade of this country increased by approximately 100 per cent. as compared with the corresponding periods of 1934 and 1935, he will consider the introduction of a system to compel all British users of foreign coastal shipping to obtain a licence, such licence not to be available in the case of those industries enjoying any form of special State assistance?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I am always prepared to consider any practicable means of assisting British shipping, but I do not think that this proposal is likely to have that effect.

Captain MACDONALD: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a great deal of this coastal trade is conducted by people who are in receipt of State assistance, and, as the Minister of Health has given an undertaking to consult the Board of Trade on the question,

could not some orders be issued to the effect that preference should be given to British shipping in this trade?

Dr. BURGIN: I do not think that any useful result would be likely to follow from putting some handicap in the way of a State-aided industry. Surely, if an industry receives State aid, it would be wrong to hamper it. If that were done it might extend still further the time during which State assistance is required.

Captain MACDONALD: Does the Parliamentary Secretary think it right to give State aid to British shipping and State aid to British industries, and at the same time help foreign shipping to compete with this State-aided industry?

Dr. BURGIN: Obviously that matter cannot be argued in supplementary questions and answers, but the hon. and gallant Member will find that State aid is not given to coastal shipping.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE PROGRAMME.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now add to the information given to the House as to the probable cost of the defence programme?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I understand that it will be possible to present a Supplementary Estimate for the Navy shortly after the Easter Recess, and that this Estimate will include the 1936 new construction programme. I am not in a position to add at the moment to the information given to the House concerning the probable requirements of the Army. In the case of the Air Force, I anticipate that the additional requirement for 1936 will be in the region of £10,000,000, though thus figure must be regarded as provisional at this stage. Supplementary Estimates for the Army and the Air Force will be presented as soon as circumstances permit. A preliminary review has been made of the requirements of the Air Force for aircraft, ammunition and other equipment needed in the immediate future to fulfil the vital functions of the Force which were defined in paragraph 36 of the Command Paper relating to Defence. Additional sources of supply for these re-


quirements must be established, and these sources will in turn constitute a reserve source of supply in the event of emergency. To constitute these new sources, and to ensure adequate production on the most economical basis possible, it will be necessary to enter at once into a number of important contracts of considerable duration, which may amount to three years; but, in order to preserve the flexibility of the programme, these long contracts will contain a carefully considered break clause. I anticipate, as the result of the review, that the Air Estimates for 1937 and 1938 will substantially exceed the aggregate of this year's original Estimate and proposed Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be possible to give particulars with regard to the Army?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not till after Easter.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPECIAL AREAS (FUND).

Miss WARD: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a decision has yet been come to with regard to the creation of the special fund for use in the Special Areas recommended by Mr. Malcolm Stewart?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope to be in a position to make a statement on this subject after the Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-IRANIAN OIL COMPANY.

Miss RATHBONE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of shares in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company are controlled by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Of the £13,425,000 ordinary stock of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, His Majesty's Government owns £7,500,000. The other issued capital of the company consists of £7,232,838 first preference stock and £5,473,414 second preference stock. Of the former His Majesty's Government owns £1,000, and of the latter none.

Miss RATHBONE: Have His Majesty's Government made any effort to use their control over that large body of stock to discourage the export of oil by the company to Italy and the Italian forces in Abyssinia?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; we have never taken one-sided or unilateral action.

Oral Answers to Questions — HERRING INDUSTRY (LOANS).

Mr. LOFTUS: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that many of the herring boats are mortgaged; and whether he will therefore consider waiving the condition that loans from the Herring Board for equipment and reconditioning must be a first mortgage on the boats, as this condition prevents the scheme being properly utilised?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Ramsbotham): My right hon. Friend is aware that many herring boats are already mortgaged, but it is believed that reconditioning, by increasing the value and efficiency of the boats, should improve, rather than impair, the security of the mortgagees, despite the priority which it is proposed to give to the board's mortgages. As at present advised, therefore, my right hon. Friend sees no reason why the condition in question should be waived.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

HORSE-BREEDING.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the room for the expansion of horse breeding in this country as a result of the increased demand from farmers; and what steps are being taken by his Department to ensure that the requisite horses shall be supplied from home rather than foreign breeders?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: My right hon. Friend has reason to believe that farmers in this country are increasing the production of heavy horses to satisfy the improved demand for these animals. The grants provided through the Ministry to assist heavy horse breeding are having a considerable influence in encouraging the home production of good quality heavy horses.

BACON.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the estimated production of bacon in British bacon factories for the year 1935; how this compared with 1933 and 1934, respec-


tively; and to what extent the annual production of British bacon could still increase before the existing British bacon factories have sufficient throughput to ensure economical working?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The output of bacon in Great Britain, including bacon produced from imported pigs and carcases, was about 2,369,000 cwt. in 1935 and 1,742,000 cwt. in 1934. These figures are exclusive of the output of small curers not registered under the Bacon marketing scheme. Similar figures for 1933 are not available. As to the last part of the question, I am unable to say what throughput is necessary to ensure the economical working of existing British factories, but this is a matter to which the Bacon Development Board will doubtless give consideration in due course.

POTATO DUTY.

Mr. De CHAIR: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can make any statement with regard to the removal of the potato duty?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given on 31st March and 2nd April, respectively, to questions on the subject by the hon. Member for Bradford Central (Mr. Leach) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Peebles (Captain Ramsay), to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. De CHAIR: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the reason advanced for removing the duty on imported potatoes was that home production had fallen short of the demand, he will consider the advisability of removing or reducing the present penalty of £5 per acre which is imposed on growers who wish to extend their acreage?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The Potato Marketing Scheme provides that if, in the opinion of the board, their expenditure in the operation of the scheme is or is likely to be increased by reason of a registered producer planting potatoes in excess of his basic potato acreage, the board may require the registered producer to pay a special non-recurring contribution not exceeding £5 in respect of each acre of his excess acreage. The question of suspending or reducing this contribution is, therefore, primarily a

matter for the board; and any producer who may be aggrieved by an act or omission of the board in this connection may refer the matter to arbitration.

Mr. De CHAIR: Does my hon. Friend realise the great difficulty in which producers find themselves at a moment like this, when, with the duty removed, they are not allowed to increase their acreage but are accused of not being able to produce the amount required for home consumption? Do the Government wish to have it both ways?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I would point out that the aggregate acreage of registered producers is no less than 636,000 acres, and that the acreage planted last year was 594,000 acres, or 40,000 acres more than the average of 1935.

Mr. PALING: If any grower does not produce up to his full capacity, can he sell his quota to any other grower?

Mr. DENVILLE: The hon. Gentleman gives the figures in acres; could we have them in tons of potatoes?

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: asked the Lord President of the Council whether the fowl paralysis sub-committee of the Agricultural Research Council now operating is the same committee as the one originally set up in 1934, and, if this is not so, whether he can state the changes in membership; whether the committee set up in 1934 took any evidence or called any witnesses or carried out any experiments; whether, if any evidence was called, it will be published; and whether he can state the results of any experiments which were then carried out?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The committee referred to is, with certain additions, the same as that set up in 1932. The committee has carried out a number of experiments, and given full consideration to, and investigated, all reports submitted to it. The summary of the committee's work, which will shortly be published, will give the result of these experiments and investigations. As regards the other points of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 2nd April.

Sir G. FOX: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this disease causes losses


amounting to many hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to poultry keepers, and will he urge the committee to make their report as early as possible?

Mr. MacDONALD: This is really a very disturbing appearance, and is a very great loss to poultry keepers. My hon. Friend can be assured that the committee will get on with the matter, and that they are fully aware of the facts themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — TITHE RENTCHARGE.

Captain BRISCOE: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the present position as regards the redemption of land tax on tithe rentcharge?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The proposals set out in the White Paper presented to Parliament in February last provide for the issue to tithe-owners of an amount of stock determined by reference to the net amount of tithe rentcharge after deduction, inter alia, of land tax on the existing basis. It is the intention that the forthcoming legislation should provide for the issue of stock on this basis, and that the amount of stook to be issued to a tithe-owner should not be increased by reason of his having redeemed land tax after the issue of the White Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANNED BEEF.

Mr. AMMON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the shortage of supply and increase in the cost of canned beef is due to the re-export of the article; and whether any steps are being taken to ensure that it is not supplied to the belligerants in the Italo-Abyssinian war?

Dr. BURGIN: I have no evidence in support of the suggestion in the first part of the question. Re-exports of canned beef in the first two months of this year represented only 1½ per cent. of the imports and were in fact less than in the corresponding period of 1934. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The official records show that none of the re-exports in the first two months of this year was consigned to Italy, Italian East Africa or Abyssinia.

Mr. AMMON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend has

already admitted that there is both a shortage and an increase in the price and at the same time there is no diminution in the imports? Where is it going?

Dr. BURGIN: The increase in the price, which is the only matter with which I can deal in answer to a supplementary question, will, I think, be traced to the increased price ruling for the cattle from which this canned beef is produced.

Mr. AMMON: The hon. Gentleman must be aware, both from the communications that I have had from his Department and replies that I have had to questions, that there is an admitted shortage on the market and there is an increased price to the consumer of at least 2d. a lb. Is it not a fact that this is due to the operation of the three big multiple firms which are largely cornering the whole business?

Dr. BURGIN: I do not think that is a matter with which we can deal by question and answer. I have endeavoured to deal with the question of price.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: asked the Postmaster-General whether Post Office engineers engaged in dealing with cases of interference with broadcast reception in this country are empowered to take or recommend action for the prevention of interference with the reception of foreign programmes as well as interference with the reception of British programmes; and what is the present number of such engineers employed and the annual expenditure thereon?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Walter Womersley): It is not the practice to deal with complaints of interference with the reception of foreign programmes. The number of engineering officers at present employed in dealing with cases of interference with broadcast reception of British programmes—expressed in terms of full time staff—is 234. The total annual expenditure is at present about £80,000.

Mr. DAY: Is any interference or jamming of foreign programmes caused by specific instructions of Government Departments?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: Not that I am aware of. The interference complained of is the fact that these foreign station broadcasts fade out when they get to this country owing to the full strength of the broadcast.

Mr. DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many programmes are jammed out?

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIES AND MANDATED TERRITORIES.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his recent declaration of policy in regard to the transfer to another sovereignty of British colonies and mandated territories applies equally to British protectorates?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPENDENCIES (CAPITAL CHARGE, COUNSEL).

Mr. AMMON: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will issue a statement showing in which of the British dependencies the native inhabitants are prohibited, and in which they are free, to employ counsel to defend them when being tried on a capital charge?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The only courts in the colonies, protectorates, or mandated territories in which the right to employ counsel is refused to persons on a capital charge are those in Somaliland and certain native courts in the Protectorate of Nigeria.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRICT RAILWAY (FIRST-CLASS COACHES).

Mr. THORNE: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the London Passenger Transport Board have no control over the trains beyond Bow Road (District Railway); and whether he will make representations to the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company to discontinue the use of first-class coaches on this line?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): I am making

inquiries from the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL SUPPLIES.

Mr. TINKER: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether, in view of the risks of a sudden emergency and the supply of oil being cut off from oversea sources and the greater need for coal, be will examine, or cause inquiries to be made, where it is contemplated closing down collieries?

Dr. BURGIN: I have been asked to reply. The potential capacity of the coal industry is more than adequate to meet any possible demand, and is not appreciably affected by the closing of individual pits. The general question, however, is one which the Government will keep in mind.

Mr. TINKER: While agreeing that there may be adequate supplies, at the same time I should not like pits to be closed down without some attention being given to the matter; and will the hon. Gentleman consult his right hon. Friend and the Secretary for Mines about the Bristol coalfield, where there is some danger of closing down?

Dr. BURGIN: Certainly, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN CONVERSATIONS.

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make any further statement in regard to the progress of the negotiations for an Anglo-Egyptian settlement; and will he give the result of the conversations to date?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Crarnborne): The conversations have been adjourned over the Easter holidays. They have continued to be marked by cordiality and mutual understanding, but they have not yet reached the stage at which a statement on their progress could properly be made.

Mr. DAY: Can the Noble Lord say whether there are any special factors which have delayed the progress of the conversations?

Viscount CRANBORNE: Not to my knowledge.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. DENVILLE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as a member of the Council of the League of Nations, he has considered the communciations issued from the Italian Government referring to the use of dum-dum bullets provided by a British armament firm, and relative to the mutilation of men serving in the Italian ranks and the misuse of the emblem of the Red Cross by the Abyssinians; and whether he will make a statement thereupon?

Viscount CRANBORNE: As regards the allegation that dum-dum bullets had been provided to the Ethiopian forces by British armament firms, a very careful investigation was made with a view to ascertaining the facts. As a result, it was found that the Italian suggestions in the above respect were entirely baseless, and on 4th February last His Majesty's Government informed the League of Nations accordingly, giving the results of their investigation in detail for the information of all members of the League. As regards the other matters mentioned in my hon. Friend's question, the Italian Government have brought them to the notice of the League of Nations, who have in turn notified the members of the League.

Mr. DAY: Can the Noble Lord say whether these bullets which were alleged to have been used were supplied by any other Continental nation?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I should prefer to have notice of that question, but I have no knowledge that dum-dum bullets were actually used.

Miss RATHBONE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government or any committee of the League concerned with the war in Abyssinia have made any representations to the Government of the United States of America respecting the abnormal increase in the export of American oil to Italy, or has inquired whether, in the event of an oil sanction being imposed by the League, the United States Government are prepared to act upon the assurance given by Senator Hull to the League Co-ordination Committee on 21st October last that his Government were anxious not to contribute to the prolongation of the war?

Viscount CRANBORNE: No, Sir.

Miss RATHBONE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will consider making a grant to the British or the Abyssinian Red Cross for the succour of Abyssinians injured in the war?

Viscount CRANBORNE: The policy of His Majesty's Government towards the Italo-Abyssinian war is in all respects based on collective action by the League of Nations. My right hon. Friend does not, therefore, consider that an individual initiative of the nature proposed would be appropriate.

Miss RATHBONE: Can the Noble Lord say whether since the profits derived by His Majesty's Government from the sale of oil for the fuelling of machines to bomb the Abyssinians is a private matter and not a matter for the League, it would not be appropriate to use some of these profits for the relief of the victims and the provision of food?

Viscount CRAMBORNE: All action by His Majesty's Government in this dispute is collective, and will continue to be so.

Miss RATHBONE: In what sense is the supply of oil by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company a collective action?

Viscount CRANBORNE: If there is agreement by all members of the League that the export of oil to Italy should be stopped, His Majesty's Government will certainly play their part.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

WARSHIP ORDERS (TYNE AND CLYDE).

Miss WARD: asked the Parlia mentary Secretary to the Admiralty the total tonnage allocated since 1931 to date to the Tyne and the Clyde, respectively?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): During the period from 1st January, 1932, to 31st March, 1936, warship orders allocated to the Clyde district amounted to approximately 94,750 tons, and to the Tyne 48,800 tons.

Miss WARD: Referring to the reply which was given yesterday on the subject of tenders, am I to understand that the Admiralty has altered its usual principle of allocating orders only on the question of price?

Mr. LINDSAY: I hardly think that question arises, but the general ratio of two to one, which is comparable with the relative figures of the five years before the War, is still being maintained.

Miss WARD: Will that apply also to the three years prior to the War?

Mr. LINDSAY: It applies to an adequate period of time; in statistical matters it is very dangerous to take too short a period.

ACCIDENT (WOOLWICH).

Mr. THORNE: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give any information in regard to the fatal accident to Ernest Emery at Woolwich Arsenal; whether he can state the cause of the accident; whether the machinery used was defective in any way; and whether the deceased's relatives are to be paid any compensation?

Mr. LINDSAY: I regret that Ernest Emery, an established yard foreman in the Royal Naval Armament Depot, Woolwich, died on 3rd April owing to an injury received in the course of his duty. Emery was supervising the lifting of a piece of armour plate, when the rope sling broke and the plate, in falling, struck him on the head and killed him. It is not known why the sling should have broken. The weight of the plate was approximately 8 tons. To lift the load the sling was doubled, and as the sling had been tested in a single condition as recently as 20th March with a load of 11 tons, there should have been an ample margin of strength. An inquest was held on 7th April, and the jury brought in a verdict of accidental death, adding the rider that there should have been a stronger rope. This question will receive further consideration in connection with an investigation as to the best type of sling for lifting operations of this nature. The Board of Admiralty have expressed their sympathy with Emery's relatives, and the question of paying compensation to his dependants is under consideration.

Mr. CREECH JONES: Can the hon. Member say whether there are any methods adopted of testing these ropes by experts in the various ways that tests are made?

Mr. LINDSAY: Yes, there are.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went, and, having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to,—

1. British Shipping (Continuance of Subsidy) Act, 1936.
2. Unemployment Insurance (Agriculture) Act, 1936.
3. Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Act, 1936.
4. Warkworth Harbour Act, 1936.
5. South Essex Waterworks Act, 1936.

Mr. THORNE: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you will allow an extra 10 minutes for questions in consequence of Black Rod intervening?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, I am afraid that I cannot.

BETTING (No. 2) BILL.

Order for Second Reading upon Friday, 24th April read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.

CROWN LANDS BILL.

Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Crown Lands Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER).

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, 21st April."—[The Prime Minister.]

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

11.52 a.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: We wish to call attention to the plight of a large number of our fellow-citizens who are unemployed, and in particular those who come under the administration of the Unemployment Assistance Board. We were never in doubt as to the folly of the method prescribed for the Unemployment Assistance Board by this House. For the purposes of economy, at a time while our party were too weak to afford adequate protection to the unemployed, certain action was taken by the Government and the Unemployment Assistance Board was established. Under the guise of economy, changes were made in the Unemployment Act. In 1931, 33⅓ per cent. additional contributions were required from those engaged in industry in this country and 42 per cent. additional contributions were made by the work-people. In the four years since that date there has accumulated, in addition to the £5,000,000 per annum available for paying off the loan existing in 1931, a Reserve Fund of £21,500,000. There is a further disposable surplus of 26,500,000 per annum, and the House was engaged yesterday in a Debate on the disposal of that surplus. The Minister proposed this time a 10 per cent. reduction in the contributions—not a 10 per cent. cut in the benefit. The Government have taken in these years no less than £60,000,000 in additional contributions from those who maintain the Unemployment Fund.
We are concerned not merely with Part I of the Act, but we wish also to call attention to Part II. The unemployed are divided into two classes. Part II deals with that section of the unemployed who have exhausted their standard benefit. We questioned the wisdom of removing from Parliament control of this vast system for dealing with one-half of our fellow citizens who are unemployed and for regulating the family incomes of those people.
We were informed yesterday that we have a live register of nearly 2,000,000. I think the figure given by the Minister was 1,880,000 and nearly half of the people come under Part II of the Act and the inquisition of the Unemployment Assistance Board. It is a strange commentary upon the proceedings of this House that nobody knows exactly what happens to these people. This House relinquishes direct control of some 800,000 people who are subject to the attentions of the Unemployment Assistance Board. No one knows exactly what happens to them unless the victims utter a cry and protest. Even then we are powerless in this House to afford them any relief. These secret operations are carried on by the Unemployment Assistance Board, on which there is no popular representation and no popular safeguards. This machine set up by the Government carries on its operations ostensibly for or e purpose and that is to save money. The whole intention of the scheme was to save money. The Minister yesterday referred to the great success which had enabled him to dangle a surplus of £6,500,000 before the eyes of the House. I hope that he is not going to refer to the great success achieved under Part II by saving money at the expense of the poorest of the poor people in this country.
This is not the occasion to discuss the means test, but we should like to have had before the Budget a full discussion on the matter. We are assured that the Death Duties will yield some part of the riches which the Chancellor of the Exchequer permits rich men to keep so long as their lease of life holds good, but we are also told that this year the return of the Death Duties will be higher than in any previous year. That is ample evidence that while the Government have achieved these miserable economies at the expense of the poor, the rich are getting richer. That is an undeniable fact in the financial history of this country. But what of the poorer classes? A most remarkable book has been written by a man to whom this country owes a debt of gratitude, Sir John Orr, and in dealing with the food of the people he states that half the population of the country spends less than 8s. per week on food. The other half spends more. The average expenditure of the population of this country on food is greater than the sum which can be afforded by the less affluent


half of the nation. Sir John Orr divides the inferior half of the nation, if I may so describe them, the less affluent half, into three classes.
The first is a group of 9,000,000 people who can afford to spend 8s. per week oil food, the second, a group of another 9,000,000 people, who spend at the rate of 6s. per week, and the third is a group of 4,500,000 people, who spend only 4s. per week on food. These 4,500,000 people fall below the minimum standard laid down by the Ministry of Health of 4s. 10d. per week as the minimum expenditure on food. About 13,000,000 people in this country spend less on food than the standard laid down by the British Medical Association of 5s. 10½d. per week. That is bad enough in all conscience, but what of the submerged tenth, these lower sub-divisions which are not recorded? There are those stricken families who come under the regulations of the Unemployment Assistance Board. An expenditure of 4s. per week on food is not permitted to them; not even 3s. per week is allowed. It is difficult to know what is really allowed to these people; there is no exact information on the point. Hon. Members have failed to elicit any information regarding the plight of those who come under the attention of the Unemployment Assistance Board.
Last year we were told that one-third of the recipients under the Unemployment Assistance Board regulations receive more than they would under transitional benefit, and that the remainder are receiving the same amount under the standstill agreement. An estimate of £50,000,000 is to be spent in 1935–36, and it is intended to cover, after allowing for the cost of administration, 790,000 applicants at the current weekly rate of benefit. That represents an average of £60 per year for each applicant receiving payment. We are not told, and the Minister has failed to inform the House, how many people are receiving no payments. Questions have been put but the right hon. Gentleman says that the information is not available as to those who receive benefits under the Unemployment Assistance Board's regulations. But they are not to have on the average more than £60 per annum. The bulk of the people who receive this income are in a desperate financial plight owing to long unemployment, ill health

and the general conditions existing in the depressed areas. Many of these people have been reduced to such straitened circumstances that they cannot control one penny purchasing power in their own right, and have to depend altogether on what is given them under the board's regulations. The hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White), who has been very assiduous in this matter, asked the Minister last June:
Whether any social survey has been made of samples of the unemployed persons and their families who are on the register of the Unemployment Assistance Board?
The Minister in his reply said:
No formal survey … has been made, hut the officers were acquiring in the course of their ordinary duties an important volume of information regarding conditions in the households with which they were dealing."—[OFFICIAL R FPORT 20th June, 1935; col. 521, Vol. 303.]
Is the House to have this information? When is this important information to be given to hon. Members who have to bear the responsibility for the treatment meted out to the unemployed by the Assistance Board, although they have no control over the board? Will this information be given to the House, and will the House be able to discuss it and pronounce judgment on the actions of those who are responsible for increasing poverty in the ease of those under the Unemployment Assistance Board? Will the House be able to influence the future operations of the board? I should like to know who is to pass final judgment on the board? We have protested in this House and asked for information but, apparently, the board is immune from all influence, pressure and control by the central political authority of the country. The Minister of Labour, apparently, is not responsible, but I should like to know whether he is satisfied with the reports which have reached him and whether he is satisfied in regard to matters arising from the administration which have been brought to his notice. Are we in this House responsible for the miserable skinflint economies imposed on our people?
Let me give the House two cases which have been brought to my notice which have occurred in a depressed area in South Wales. They are the cases of two men applicants, whose wives, after a long illness, died from cancer. The beds upon which they had laid were condemned by the medical officer to be destroyed, and


very properly so. They were destroyed. There was a room in the house in which there was no bed at all, and the applicant for unemployment assistance made an application to the local officer for an allowance to provide him with a new bed. There was much delay in both cases but, ultimately, after submission to the Ministry and to the board, one of the applicants received a grant of £1. As far as I know the other applicant has not yet received anything. In these cases the men had to borrow beds from their neighbours. The poor help the poor. In these areas it is astonishing how the very poorest help the poor out of their difficulties, while the Minister, who flaunts his £6,500,000 surplus and is proud of his £21,500,000 reserve, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer who will shortly no doubt preen himself on the success of his financial methods, entirely ignore these cases.
Let me call the attention of the Minister to a case in which he was invited to assist. It is the case of a pit which had been idle for a very long time and was then restarted. A number of colliers were invited to go back to work, but as they had been idle from four to six years they had worn out their clothes, they had no working boots and no tools, and they could not start work again without being assisted by somebody. Perhaps the House does not know that if I, for instance, wanted to return to my occupation to-morrow, I should have to find somewhere £5 with which to buy working boots and clothes and tools. That minimum expenditure of £5 is necessary, but the men to whom I have referred had not five pennies. They were in the last stage of physical deterioration because of the miserable policy of the Government during the last five or six years. They had to go to work with miserably thin shoes which had been lent to them by their neighbours. These men appealed to the Minister, but not one penny piece was given to them as far as I know. That is a crying scandal of which this House ought to be ashamed, and I hope the Minister will show a proper degree of personal responsibility for and disapproval of the terrible conditions from which our people have to suffer.
I would like now to refer to the regular investigations which take place, I suppose in accordance with the paragraph

I previously quoted. No formal survey has to be made, but the officers are required in the course of their ordinary duties to collect a volume of information, and there are investigation officers, both male and female, who visit the homes of our people when applications are made for assistance under special circumstances. These inquiries are pushed almost to the point of indecency. The private affairs of men and women are pried into in a way which is intolerable to a person with average pride. A large number of people refuse to answer the questions that are put to them, and they conceal their poverty rather than expose themselves to the investigations which are taking place. For instance, they are asked to report whether the house in which they live has a decent appearance and whether there is any debt on the family. In acquiring this information not all the officers are tactful. I do not wish to make a charge against any individual I have met, nor do I wish to make any allegation in general against the Officers of the board, but I do say that they are not all tactful and that some very tactless officers have made their appearance and come into conflict with the natural pride of our people. We find that the good appearance of a house is a disability to the applicant. Neatness and evidence of family pride constitute a disability, and the applicant receives less on that account. The person who has striven and struggled and made sacrifices to avoid incurring debts is under a disability. Not only must the people be poor and stripped bare of their belongings, but they must be in debt before they receive the attention of the officers employed by the Unemployment Assistance Board.
We would welcome an opportunity to discuss this machinery as a whole, this system of dealing with one half of the total unemployed persons who are subject to this examination, this constant inquisition which breaks down their spirits and their pride and keeps these people in a state of physical inefficiency. This is a scandalous thing, in view of the unquestionable evidence that there is physical decadence in the country. His Majesty's Recruiting Officers invite young men to go to the recruiting offices and enlist. The young men offer themselves. They are measured, weighed and tested al to their physical fitness, and one-third


of them, chiefly young men coming from the industrial classes, is found to be unsuitable to wear His Majesty's uniform. One-third of those young men is looked upon with contempt by those who represent His Majesty in that capacity, but His Majesty's Government in this House are responsible in a large measure for the physical inefficiency of our people.
To-day we protest most strongly against the continuance of these despicable methods of finding the minimum level of existence for our people. We have gone far below a reasonable minimum standard and great hardships are being imposed. We are glad to have this opportunity on the Adjournment of the House to protest, and to ask the Minister whether he will not give the House one word of comfort? Will he not tell us before we go away that he will use his influence—I am not sure that he has much power—to see that these pettifogging economies imposed upon the poorest of our people shall come to an end.

12.13 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: There is one point in particular in the speech of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) with which we on these benches would like to associate ourselves, and it is that, whatever regulations may be brought in in the future, we shall never be satisfied as long as the constitution of the Unemployment Assistance Board remains as it is and as long as no Minister in this House is directly answerable for that which it does. I take it that my hon. Friends above the Gangway have brought up this matter as a sort of preliminary skirmish before the battle which we are likely to have on the Unemployment Regulations when we return. I have no doubt that again to-day the Minister will tell us, as he has told us before, that before we can get any information on this matter we must wait for the spring: he will remember no doubt a line from Coleridge—
and the spring comes slowly up this way.
I do not wish to stress unduly a point which has often been made in this House, but I think it is felt in all quarters that there has been a perfectly amazing delay in introducing the new Regulations. It is often pointed out that it is About 14 months since the last Regulations were modified by the standstill arrangement, but the board came

into existence nearly six months prior to that. We do not know what they did in that six months, but the fact remains that by the time the new Regulations come into force, it will be nearly two years from the day when the Unemployment Act, 1934, received the Royal Assent.
Why is it that these difficulties have arisen? After all, the head of the board is a man whom we all respect and who left this House with a very high reputation. The Minister of Labour, as we know, although we may sometimes differ from him, would not spare himself in his endeavours to obtain all possible information and to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion in this matter. I think the difficulty goes much deeper than that. It is not merely a question of collecting information from this or that district. There are many of us who are doubtful whether it is possible to arrive at a satisfactory solution of this question within the framework of the 1934 Act. The difficulties are not -to be found in any rigidity of administration, not to be found in any incidental mistakes that were made in drafting the original Regulations. They are to be found in Section 38 of the 1934 Act, first of all laying down that the board shall make Regulations and relief shall be administered in accordance with Regulations which are precisely the same from Land's End to John o' Groats, while no account is taken of the different standards of relief which may have existed in different parts of the country. I think you are bound to have difficulties so long as you try to iron out exactly all the local variations that there may have been. I am not arguing may I anticipate possible reply of the Minister?—for a return to local administration, but I am very doubtful whether it is possible to get a satisfactory solution of this matter if you have simply one board for the whole country applying uniform methods. I do not know whether the Minister has considered the question of having different bodies in order to administer relief in different parts of the country.
Secondly, the major difficulty arises, and always has arisen, from the words in Section 38 of the 1934 Act. In Subsection (3) it is laid down:
"Such Regulations shall in particular provide that the resources of an applicant


taken into account shall include the resources of all members of the household of which he is himself a member."
The way in which that actually is made to read is "the resources taken into account shall include all the resources of all members of the household." I have never said that we should give relief at a flat rate without any regard to the circumstances of the applicant. On that matter I want to make it clear that I have always differed from members of the Labour party. But when the Minister brings in his new Regulations I hope that there are two principles, if I may use the term, which he will bear in mind. First, I hope that he will retain what I may call the principle of the sliding scale. This is on the assumption that he retains some form of household means test, as I imagine will be the case. The great vice of the old transitional system was this: That the wage-earner living in the house with an unemployed man was allowed to keep a certain fixed personal allowance out of his own earnings, and the whole balance, however great it might be or however much it might vary, was deducted from the assessment of the unemployed member of the household. If the wage-earner were able in some way to increase his earnings he could get no benefit from it, but the whole of that increase could be taken off the amount that was given to his father or brother or whoever the other member of the family might be. It is true, I acknowledge, that the original Regulations did seek to obviate that difficulty, and they did provide that there should not be a fixed personal allowance but that it should vary to a certain extent in accordance with the size of the earnings; but the difficulty with the Regulations was that there was practically no minimum, and even when the earnings of the wage-earner were very small indeed some amount was taken from them.
That was one of the main reasons why in so many areas the households found themselves worse off under the Regulations than they were under the system of transitional payments. Under the transitional payments there was in nearly every case this fixed minimum below which no deduction was made from the earnings of the wage-earner.
Let me give a single example. I am not going to trespass on the patience of the House by detailing all sorts of cases, but I will state what is in fact happening now. Suppose that there is an unemployed man who has a boy at school. Of course, the boy's maintenance is allowed for to a certain extent in the determination. The boy leaves school and gets a job as an errand boy or in some other capacity at 10s. a week. This is an actual case that I have in mind, but there are many thousands like it. Under the operation of the Regulations the personal allowance for the boy is one-third of 10s., i.e., 3s. 4d. That is to say, the father's determination is cut down to the extent of 6s. 8d. The Minister may reply, and I think it would be a legitimate reply, that originally the boy's maintenance was allowed for in the father's assessment to the extent of 6s., and that there is no reason why a public authority should be responsible any longer for the maintenance of the boy now that he is to a certain extent maintaining himself. That is a perfectly legitimate argument. But my point is that this system goes further. It does not simply say to the boy, "You are now maintaining yourself, so we will wipe out the amount we were allowing you and leave you to live on the 10s.," but they deduct more than that. Even when you have allowed for that 6s. they are still deducting 8d. from the father's assessment. That is an actual case and I am sure hon. Members can produce many similar cases. It may be said that that 8d is not a very great matter, but it is just cases of that sort that created the impression far and wide that here is a system which is designed to deduct from the unemployed every penny that can possibly be taken away from them.
I want to suggest to the Minister that if we are to have a household means test at all—I am not discussing that question now—there must be some absolute minimum in the matter of wages, below which nothing at all should be taken into account. In no case should that minimum be less than 20s. or 21s., and it might very well be substantially higher. If you do not have that, though your Regulations may he logical, though they may be perfectly worked out, I think you are bound to have a breakdown such as occurred at the beginning of last year. I have never in this House advocated


the payment of a flat rate of relief irrespective of circumstances, but at this time, as everyone knows, we are spending enormous sums in other directions, and it would be a very unfortunate thing if at the same time we were to persist with a system which screws the odd pence and the odd sixpences from the most unfortunate section of the community.

12.24 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: I am glad that before the House rises for the holidays we have an opportunity of discussing the means test. To some of us it is one of the most important questions that the House could discuss. We believe that the means test is the most diabolical instrument that any Government has ever invented to drive people down into poverty. It is a heartbreaking piece of machinery and we are glad of this opportunity of condemning it. In the last Parliament we condemned this means test again and again, but the Government would not listen to us until they found that they had to go to the country. Then, as soon as the General Election came, they made promises which they have not fulfilled, and we are no better off to-day in this respect than we were before the General Election and there is no more prospect now than there was then, of this means test being abolished. Recently, we had a short Debate on the Adjournment dealing with this question and the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) who raised that Debate, said he felt that the only way of dealing with the problem effectively was the abolition of the household means test. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) on the same occasion referred to the household means test and the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) has referred to it this morning. I am not clear as to whether he stands for the abolition of the household means test or not.
We are told, however, that the Minister is going to deal with this question and I hope that he will not be encouraged by anything which has been said in this House to believe that the House would be satisfied with the abolition of the household means test. Some of us would go further than that. We plead for more than the abolition of the household means test. We have seen that test applied, we have seen its results, we have seen people

crushed down into poverty by it and we stand, not only for the abolition of the household means test, but for the abolition of the family means test and the abolition of the personal means test. We believe that a means test cannot, in any way, be justified in its application to the unemployed. In the Debate to which have just referred, there was a statement by the Minister which it was difficult to understand. He attempted to justify the Government not dealing with the means test and not carrying out the pledge made at the General Election by saying that the Government in their manifesto had said they would deal with the matter in the spring. I quote from the "Parliamentary Gazette" in the terms of the Government manifesto. It said:
No alteration will be made in the existing 'standstill' arrangements before next spring at the earliest.
There they were dealing with the standstill arrangement and the manifesto then went on to say:
As regards the means test "—
It will be noted that they put the means test in a different category from the standstill arrangement—
the Government believe that no responsible person would seriously suggest that unemployment assistance, which is not insurance benefit, ought to be paid without regard to the resources properly available to the applicant. The question is not whether there should be a means test but what that test should be. This is a matter which is now under close examination.
That was in last October or November. Surely, before this it should have been possible to make a statement in regard to the carrying out of that pledge and of what the Government intend to do regarding the means test. Yet we find the Minister sheltering himself behind the plea that the manifesto declared that the means test would be dealt with in the spring. Anyone reading that manifesto was entitled to come to the conclusion that, if the Government were returned, they would deal with the means test forthwith. As a matter of fact, that must have been in the mind of the Lord President of the Council because, addressing a meeting in Durham, he declared that unless something was done about the means test he would resign from the Cabinet. He is still in the Cabinet and the Government have done nothing. Even in regard to the new Regulations, the impression made by the


Government's promise was that when the spring came the new Regulations would be here. The spring is here but there are no new Regulations.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Perhaps it was not the spring of this year that they meant.

Mr. BATEY: In any case I have very little hope concerning these new Regulations. I confess that it does not really worry me. I am satisfied that we shall not be much better off under the new Regulations than we are now. But we are entitled to ask when the new Regulations are to be introduced, and I would also ask the Minister whether it is his intention to deal with the means test in the new Regulations. The hon. Member for Dundee quoted from the 1934 Act. It is difficult to understand how the Minister proposes to deal with the means test when he brings in the new Regulations. I submit he will have to deal with the means test separately and apart from the new Regulations.
Instead of the position under the means test being remedied or made easier for the people affected things are being made worse for those in the distressed areas. I propose to illustrate that, by four different cases from my own district. The first is the case of a father, mother and two sons, the father and the two sons being unemployed. The father and mother received 28s. a week and the two sons 9s. a week each, or a total of 46s. a week for that household. The father got work in one of the pits on the night-shift starting at 35s. a. week. As soon as he started work the board reduced the benefit payable to each of the two sons from 9s. to 5s. Thus the total income of the household was reduced from 46s. to 45s. just because the father had got work. Is it the intention of the Ministry or the board that when a man starts work the income of the home is to be reduced by 1s. a week? There is no encouragement there for anybody to seek work.
Now I want to quote another case. It is of a man in one of our colliery villages, where there is very little opportunity to get work. There are a man, his wife, and six children. The two oldest boys have just started work, one being 16 and the other 14. The lad of 16 is earning 14s. a week, and the son of 14 started to work down the pit last October, at 12s.

a week. When this boy of 14 started work, this is what the officer of the board observed when they reduced the father's benefit and the father appealed. The officer said:
Applicant appeal, against reduced determination from 33s. to 25s., arrived at as the result of increased resources, a son, aged 14, having started work at a wage of 12s. a week.
As soon as ever that boy of 14 started work in the pit, the father's benefit was reduced from 33s. to 25s., and in that case there were also a daughter of 12, another daughter of 10, another son of six, and another younger son to keep. I want to ask the Minister whether he can justify cases like that. I have all the papers here for him to see.
Here is a different class of case altogether. One could quote scores of cases, but I am taking these few as samples. Here is a case of a father and mother, a daughter of 16, a ion of 14, a son of 13, a son of 20, and a son of 22. The son of 22 is working for the district council, and the son of 20 cannot get work. The father has never had a day's work for years and has no prospect of getting any. The son working for the council is earning 49s. 9d. a week, of which 45s. 8d. is reckoned as income going into the household, and although there are a mother and daughter and three sons idle, the determination for the father is only 22s. a week. The result is that the son of 22 says, "I am not going to stand this, that all my earnings should be reckoned and my father's benefit reduced. I will pay for my board." When he does that, the officer says, "That does not matter. You are still in the house, and therefore your earnings must count." In a case like that the Government are smashing up family life and are saying to the son, "Get out of the house; as long as you stay in, your earnings will be reckoned."
There is only one other case that I want to mention. The Durham Miners' Executive Committee have passed a resolution regarding the recent advance in wages, and they condemn that advance being taken into account in assessing the needs of those who are to receive benefit. I submit that that position ought to have been made abundantly clear long before now, and that nobody could justify, after the country saying that the time had come when the miners were


entitled to an advance in wages, the Government's reckoning that extra sixpence a day in order to reduce the benefit of some other member of the household.
I had long experience before coming to this House both as a local miners' leader and as a county miners' leader, and I confess that I cannot understand how working men are expected to be able to understand these papers which are issued by the Unemployment Assistance Board. I defy a chartered accountant to understand them. If I started to read out some of them to the House, the House would simply think that I was mad to do it. I want to say to the Minister of Labour, "When you are dealing with your new regulations, please try to simplify these papers so that the average working man can understand them. Do not waste money on printing these papers. The money would be far better given to the people instead of being spent on printing these papers which nobody can understand."
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I have been so long, but when one gets on this topic, which lies so close to one's heart, one does not find it easy to finish. In the distressed areas we are no better off, and we are getting no better. It was stated this week that the unemployment figures were down, but at one of the exchanges in my division there was an increase, not a decrease. In spite of everything which the Government pretend that they have done, in spite of the Commissioner being there, and with such immense powers as it is said he has, we are no better off in the South West part of the county of Durham, and it is time that the Government took into consideration the question of doing something for these distressed areas, not only in the way of finding work, but, when it is possible for these people to get work, to be just a little bit human towards these folk. After all is said and done, this is a human problem. We see these folk being crushed, and we know that their hearts are being broken by this diabolical instrument of the means test, and I ask the Government to be just a little bit human in dealing with these people.

12.43 p.m.

Mr. ROWSON: I rise to add my voice in protest against the continued application of the Unemployment Assistance Board's Regulations, and, after all, we

have to bring in the means test when we are dealing with this matter. I was in the House in 1931 when those emergency measures were put before the House, and through the House, by the first National Government. We were told at that time that these were emergency measures and that it was absolutely necessary for the country to take these steps and to cease to pay unemployment benefit on the lavish scale, as it was called, under which they were paid by the then Labour Government. Since then the National Government have claimed, practically for two years past, that trade has revived and that they have restored the position, and in many ways they have restored some of the cuts that were made at that time, but in regard to this matter of the Unemployment Assistance Board's Regulations and the means test, there seems to be no idea on the part of the Government of taking any action whatever. It is true we are promised that something will be laid down very shortly. Something was attempted in the Act of 1934, but the Government were ashamed of it when it was put into operation and they had to withdraw it.
If the claim of the Government is genuine about the position having been restored by the National Government, they might, if they will not completely abolish the means test, at least abolish the household means test. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) is an optimist if he expects this Government to abolish the means test altogether, although, if they went so far as to abolish the household means test, they might go a little further and abolish the test altogether, because the cost of applying the simple means test would be no more than the expenses of administration of the Unemployment Assistance Board. I should like to add my voice to the appeal to the Minister that has been made from various parts of the House, not only by Labour and Liberal Members, but by many Conservatives, to abolish the household means test. That would give a great measure of relief to scores of people. Every hon. Member could quote hard cases which would impress hon. Members opposite. I can quote a case, and I am sure the most diehard Conservative would not support the means test being applied as it was in that case. A widowed mother in receipt of the widow's pension had two unem-


ployed sons and one son working as a haulage hand in the mine. In order to assess the unemployment pay of the two sons, the widow's pension and the son's earnings were taken into account. The son who was working said that he would not remain in the position of his earnings being taken into consideration to deprive his brothers of unemployment pay. If he stayed at home it meant that he could not get the clothing he needed and that for months on end he had to go without any spending money at the week-end. He, therefore, left home so that the two brothers could get their unemployment pay. Within seven weeks he was killed on the haulage road at Crawford Colliery. I, as miner's agent for that district, had to deal with the claim for compensation, and I was told by the employers that as he was not living at home his mother could not claim to be a dependant. In that case, therefore, the family had not only to suffer the injustice of the lad being driven from home as a result of the application of the means test, but his poor widowed mother had to accept less compensation than she would have got had he stayed at home. That case can be proved if I am challenged on the facts.
The hon. Member for Spennymoor has cited cases of people being driven from home, and I am certain that hon. Members opposite know of similar cases of young men and women leaving home so that their fathers could get unemployment pay. I have a case in mind of a highly respectable family in which the young daughter was working at a cooperative society's shop and earning 35s. a week. Her father could not get unemployment benefit, so she left home. She wanted to get married, so she had to come home for a certain period while the banns were being published. I understand that some deduction was made from the father's unemployment pay while she was there. A case was reported to me by the financial secretary of the Durham Miners' Association, and in connection with it I would ask the Minister whether public servants could not be given something better to do. As a result of the advance in wages to which the hon. Member for Spennymoor referred, certain increases have gone into the homes. In Durham it is only 6d.

per day for the men and 3d. for the boys. After all the investigations and all the mathematical calculations, the result arrived at was that the Unemployment Assistance Board made the magnificent reduction of 2d. per week from the unemployment or transitional payments. Surely we can put civil servants to something better than getting 2d. per week out of people in that manner.
I would like to draw the notice of the Minister, as the hon. Member for Spennymoor did, to the tactless and harsh methods that are sometimes adopted. I want to give a case that has been put before me this week from my constituency. It is the case of a recipient who for three month; has been entitled to 29s. 3d. a week. The investigator has been round again, and without any change of circumstances he has ordered a new determination on the basis of 22s. a week. I cannot understand why such a change should come about if the circumstances are exactly similar. I have not had time to investigate the case, but the man complains bitterly about the way in which he has been treated. I submit that we are justified on these facts in protesting against the means test being used in the way it is. Self-respecting people who have worked in mines and factories for 30 and 40 years, who have never known what it was to make application for public assistance, who have been able to hold up their heads in respect, resent this kind of thing. It is destroying their morale and their character. We heard a good deal of who was responsible for the means test. I know that many hon. Members who came into the House after the election of 1931, in their innocence or their ignorance, blamed the Labour Government for the imposition of the means test.

Mr. DENVILLE: What a shame!

Mr. ROWSON: I have had to go through it as a result, and I got the dirty kick out. Even since the last Election we have heard the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies trying to put it over about the late Minister of Health, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), being responsible for the means test. I say here and now that the means test did not come into operation until after the election of 1931, and that


it was due very largely to pressure from employers in this country. As to who were the authors of it, as to where it came from first of all, I have here a copy of the original pamphlet, and any hon. Member opposite who wishes can see it, giving the source of the means test that had to be applied to the unemployed who had gone out of insurance and were on transitional payments. The authors of the means test as it was applied then were the Confederation of Employers' Organisations. This pamphlet was published on 12th February, 1931, months before the crisis took place. They say that unemployment benefit ought to be reduced by 33⅓ per cent., and they continue:
Those at present drawing unemployment benefit who cannot satisfy the above test should be dealt with through a special fund provided by the Government and administered locally on a means test basis, which would have regard to the circumstances of the individual case.
Possibly the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) will remember what was said in this House at the time. I believe that this pamphlet was responsible for the May Committee. It was responsible for a good many things that were clone at that time, though I think a change has come about now. I quoted last night from the report of the Statutory Committee a certain statement made by the Confederation of Employers' Organisations. I say they were more responsible than any other body for that idea of the means test coming to this House. They want low unemployment benefit and tight conditions for getting unemployment benefit, in order that they can compel the workers to accept the lowest possible wages. I ask the Minister of Labour not to submit so much to the pressure of employers outside this House. I submit that we have had proof that there is a general consensus of opinion among all parties in this House that at least there should be a drastic modification of the means test as it is being applied. If he cannot "go the whole hog" and abolish the means test altogether, I ask him, for the sake of the sancitity of family life, at least to take steps to abolish the household means test as early as possible.

12.58 p.m.

Mr. GUY: I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, but the challenge of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr.

Batey) has brought me to my feet. He said that the Government have broken every pledge they gave at the last Election, and referred us to the Government's manifesto, but I submit that he has failed completely to substantiate that charge. He referred to the standstill arrangements being kept in force until the spring. No alteration has been made so far in those arrangements. The whole gravamen of the complaint from the Opposition benches is that the Minister has delayed bringing in the new Unemployment Assistance Regulations.

Mr. BATEY: I submit that the manifesto did say the Regulations would be brought in in the spring.

Mr. GUY: At the earliest.

Mr. BATEY: I said the impression made upon the people was that when the spring came the Regulations would come. The spring has come but the Regulations have not.

Mr. GUY: I think the impression made upon those hon. Members who read the Government's manifesto clearly was that it was not before the spring that we should have the new Regulations. I expect that we shall have them before long. At the end of the passage in the Government's manifesto dealing with unemployment assistance are these words:
This is a matter which is under close examination, but in any scheme great importance will be attached to maintaining the unity of family life, and, in addition, provision will be made to meet any eases of proved hardship.

Mr. BATEY: When the hon. Gentleman read in the Government's manifesto that the means test was under close consideration, was it his impression that the Government meant to deal with it when they returned to Parliament?

Mr. GUY: I fully expected that the Government would deal with it in a few months' time, and I am confident that they will carry out that undertaking. I would refer to the point about dealing with cases of proved hardship, because the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) dealt with a number of hard cases in the course of his interesting speech, but did not suggest—and I thought this was very important—that the means test should be swept away altogether. The


hon. Member for Spennymoor would have no means test at all.

Mr. BATEY: Yes, no means test.

Mr. GRENFELL: I did not suggest the abolition of the means test, because I knew that Mr. Speaker was in the Chair.

Mr. GUY: That may be so, but that did not stop the hon. Member for Spennymoor from suggesting it. The important point in this connection is that the cases referred to by the hon. Member for Gower could not have been dealt with under unemployment insurance. There was the case of men who have had as much as £5 provided for them with which to get a new set of tools. They could not have got that under standard benefit. Those instances provide a great justification for the steps taken to deal with cases of proved hardship. A man who has been for six months unemployed and has had to sell his tools must have special provision made to enable him to start work. One justification for some kind of means test is that it enables special provisions to be made to meet cases of special need. I believe the Minister of Labour is giving careful attention to this point, and I am confident that when we get the new Regulations we shall find they make more adequate provision for dealing with hard cases.
The hon. Member for Spennymoor having dealt with the Government's manifesto, I should like to say a word about the Labour party's manifesto. There was a pasage in the Labour party's manifesto which was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. They did not say openly and definitely that they would abolish every means test but that
Labour would sweep away the humiliating means test imposed by the National Government.
That is a reference to a particular means test which they want to sweep away, but they carefully avoid committing themselves to sweeping away every kind of means test. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is not in his place, but the Communist party is the only party in this country which is whole-hearted against every kind of means test. If I am wrong in that assertion perhaps the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) will make clear

the position of his party on the point, but the attitude of the Communist party is certainly clear. They would have no means test and they would prolong unemployment insurance. The junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) said that he was not satisfied with the present position of the Unemployment Assistance Board outside unemployment insurance but I believe that if we were to continue unemployment insurance for all the able-bodied poor after they have exhausted standard benefit the only result mould be to smash unemployment insurance itself. It would be the end of unemployment insurance, and I doubt whether any responsible person would advocate that step.
I now wish to put before the Minister a point similar to that which I put in January of last year, when we were considering the position which had developed owing to the breakdown of the Unemployment Assistance Regulations. We all know that there are many cases of hardship, suffering and distress under the present means test, and we are anxious that there should be definite improvement in various directions. We must keep in mind that there is a distinction between the kind of assistance given in unemployment assistance and that given under the Poor Law. Under the Poor Law, there have for long years been destitution tests, but we do not want them for the able-bodied poor. We want something a little bit better for them, because they are men who, in due course, may be absorbed back into employment. We want a standard of living for them sufficient not merely to keep body and soul together, but to maintain them as efficient units ready to take their place in employment again.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I point out that the hon. Member has made a mistake in saying that only one party in the House is opposed to the means test, since everybody knows that we have opposed it from the start? As to the difference between the Poor Law and the treatment of the unemployed who are on transitional payments, may I ask him why a small shopkeeper who is unfortunate enaugh never to qualify, and who must go on to the Poor Law, should be treated worse than a person who has qualified for transitional payments?

Mr. GUY: I can make that point clear. There is at present a very important distinction between unemployment assistance


for the able-bodied poor and the treatment of those who are under the Poor Law. In the first case, a valuable concession was given under the Unemployment Act of 1934, and I do not think anyone suggests that it should be abolished, that the first £25 of savings should be disregarded. That is the distinction between unemployment assistance theory and the theory of destitution tests apply to the ordinary poor. I would like to see that distinction, which is a narrow one to-day, still further developed. I would like to see, if possible, under the new Regulations, a slightly higher standard of living laid down for those who conic under the Unemployment Assistance Board.

1.8 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I shall not deal with questions relating to the means test, because they have been covered as well as I could have covered them. As to who started the means test, I shall not start on that question. I rise to deal with a technical point which I shall ask the Minister to examine, and, as it is a difficult one to explain, I trust that the House will bear with me while I deal with it.
Under standard benefit, when a person claims for a dependent, who may be the man's wife, from whom he is separated and who may be living apart in another part of the country, or who may be his child, a housekeeper, his mother or a daughter, the first thing that the insurance officer has to do is to judge of the propriety or otherwise of the claim. If he has any doubt, he refers the claim to the court of referees, and if he has no doubt, he allows the claim. That is the procedure for standard benefit, but hitherto it has also been the procedure for all other classes of benefit. I understand that the Minister has recently issued a Circular, which I deplore because it is marked "Private and confidential." Members of Parliament and the unemployed surely have the right to know when there is to be a change. If there were to be a change in foreign policy, or in our financial relationships such as in the Income Tax, hon. Members of this House would demand to know the facts. Here is a change being made by a Minister in a circular marked "private and confidential." What does

the change mean? Why should the Minister do it by secrecy and stealth?
Take the merits of the thing. The standard benefit man had the right of appeal to a court of referees if an insurance officer had turned his claim down, and before the court of referees he had two or three rights. One was that he knew the facts before he went there, because he was supplied with them; secondly, there was usually a lawyer in the Chair, who was often not a bad chairman because legal matters frequently were raised, and thirdly, he had representatives of the worker and the employer beside him. As one who attends courts of referees, may I say that it is often difficult to differentiate between who is the employers' and who is the workers' representative, because sometimes one is better than the other. The claimant has the case there to be argued, and at the end of it he gets his decision. Then, if possible, he has a further appeal to the Umpire.
What is happening with transitional payments? A man may claim for, say, his daughter, or, more frequently, a man claims for his mother. He has to prove that his mother is dependent upon him. Under the procedure of this private Circular, the insurance officer says: "In my view the mother is not dependent upon the son," and the man under transitional payments has no appeal to the court of referees or to the Umpire. That becomes what is called his notional rating, which means that the transitional payments people cannot increase his money to cover the mother, because his notional rating determines all other matters that follow after. The insurance officer, therefore, can determine, without any appeal, whether that mother is dependent or not. I suggest that before the matter is finally decided the man should have an appeal to the court of referees. The right hon. Gentleman may say that the man can appeal to the appeal board under the transitional payments people, but they cannot alter the notional rating. They can only increase for special circumstances. They can only say that the rating is too low, but they cannot make a rating for a man and wife amount to more than 26s., because that is his notional rating. Therefore, it is decided that a person is not dependent upon another person, and you give none of the legal


rights which you give to others. That is the technical point that I wanted to raise, and I suggest that the Minister should restore to the people on transitional payments the right of appeal to a court of referees. I trust that this matter will be reversed, and that, where the rates are affected, they will at least be made public for us to examine. I myself have not seen the actual circular, but I am told that it was marked "Private and Confidential." I trust that hon. Members on these benches will have some success in getting the means test abolished and making the conditions of the unemployed better than they have been hitherto.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: There are three cases to which I desire to refer. I cannot understand the mind of those who, like the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy) seem always ready to apply a very severe test to those who happen to be hard up in this country, but I am not going to be tempted to say more about the remarks to which the hon. Member treated the House a few moments ago. I should like to ask the Minister why his officers are so anxious, ready and determined to refer married women's cases to courts of referees. I wish to quote two cases. One is that of a young woman, a book-keeper in an office, who became unemployed and signed at the exchange. For some reason best known to the officer of the Ministry of Labour, the case was referred to the court of referees, on the ground that it was not possible for that girl to obtain similar employment in the town where she was living. The court of referees decided against her, and then the curious thing happened that she obtained a similar situation at once but they still proceeded with the case, and she was deprived of her benefit, but was told that, if she becomes unemployed again, she stood a better chance of getting her benefit on the next occasion.
The other case is that of a typist who, because of illness, had to leave her employment. When recovering from the illness, she signed at the exchange and received her benefit; but, although her employer said that, if he had not filled her position, he would have employed her, and certainly would employ her the moment he had a vacancy, yet she was harassed by the exchange authorities

and deprived of her benefit as one who would not obtain similar work in the town where she was then residing. To force these people into that position is a method of administration that one does not expect to obtain in this country.
The third case to which I desire to refer is one of which I should have liked to be able to give notice to the Minister, but it has come to my attention only within the last few minutes. There is a notion in the country that the exchanges exist for the purpose of people obtaining employment, but I have come across a case where the exchange—I will mention the name if the right hon. Gentleman desires it—telephoned to a particular employer stating that the man would not be available for work on the following day. I admit that it was for one day's work—presiding at a polling booth during an election. The man knew nothing about it; he had offered to undertake the work; but, for no reason at all that one can gather, he was deprived of it because the manager of the exchange, which is on the borders of London, told the town clerk or whoever was the authority that the man would not be available for work. I do not know whether this is a new instruction, but I hope it is, and that it is going to be withdrawn very speedily. I am quite willing to hand this case over to the Minister, and, if he presses for details, to give the name of the man and the name of the exchange, but I would ask that the exchanges should be encouraged to find employment for people, and not to deprive them of the chance of employment.

1.21 p.m.

Mr. E. BROWN: The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) raised this issue in his usual very fair way, and made one or two points, but I do not want to follow him or anyone else who has spoken this morning except to say that there is one fact about responsibility for the means test and the views held by hon. Members that the House might bear in mind. When the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Rowson) is so eloquent about the responsibility for Vie means test, he might remember that, when the election was over in 1931, the hen Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) for seven months asked for a declaration from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite as to what their view was, and there was no answer. I leave


that fact for hon. Members to draw their conclusions upon on some occasion when it is appropriate, but that gap of seven months require, explaining. The other polemical point is about the relationship to the facts of the present time, and I do not think the hon. Member for Gower is the right person—

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that many times in this House questions are put to Ministers on that bench for six months, 10 months, and sometimes 10 years, without any answer being given?

Mr. BROWN: It may be so, but the question then was not with regard to a matter which might be decided, but with regard to a matter which had been decided, and I think I am entitled to call the attention of the House to it.
The other point is about the method by which assistance to able-bodied persons who have exhausted their ordinary benefit is administered through a statutory board, and I do not think the hon. Member for Gower was quite the right person to put that point. If he will refer to a Bill which has been presented to Parliament this Session, called the Workmen's Compensation Bill, in Part II of which—it is interesting that it is in Part II—beginning with page 20, there are utterly drastic powers, far outside anything contemplated or provided for in the Act of 1934, he will find it very difficult to justify putting workmen's compensation in those terms under a board outside Parliament with utterly arbitrary powers, while at the same time not putting the relief of able-bodied unemployed people under a statutory board. I do not think it lies with him and those who support the principle of that Bill to make an indictment against the Government's policy in this present matter.
The only other semi-political question that has been raised was raised in the most attractive way by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey)—if I may call him my hon. Friend this morning, since we are going away for a recess, and it is the spring. He tried to make a distinction between regulations and the means test, but really it is very difficult to see how that distinction can be drawn, for, unless you have regulations determining the test of need, there can be no way of altering or removing the means test. The means test is bound

up with the Regulations. The whole question is, on what basis need shall be determined. Hon. Members have talked about the keeping of an election pledge. Let me inform the House once more that the election pledge was carefully drawn, and showed all thoughtful persons two things. The investigation into what happened in the early part of last year which was undertaken by the board and my predecessor, and continued with the board by me, had by November reached the stage that it was possible to declare general lines of approach to the major issues concerned. That was laid down in the manifesto. It was said that when the matter was dealt with it would not be before the spring at the earliest, and then all these principles laid down in the manifesto would be observed. What has happened about the administration of the board?
The problem can be simply stated but it cannot be simply solved. I do not think the parties of the left have a very strong case, because over and over again in the last 12 years speeches have been made by those who desired a change demanding three things, a national system, a uniform system and no interference by local busybodies. The whole problem arises there. When the impact of that new system was made, the trouble was that it was made upon thousands of towns and villages where an infinite variety of previous practice had reigned. The first thing we had to do was to consider the matter theoretically from the point of view of principle and of the application of the form of the actual Regulation. The next thing was to consider how in each particular item of the Regulations, either in itself or in its impact upon some other item in the Regulations, we could meet what fair-minded people would regard as genuine grievance and hardship. Those investigations are almost at an end and the House will not have long to wait. [Interruption.] That I know nothing about. The last thing that the hon. Member for Gorbals would wish to do is to punish me by putting responsibility for the "Daily Herald" upon my shoulders.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is marked "official."

Mr. BROWN: That may be so, but the fact that it is marked "official" in the popular Press does not make it the truth.


I thought it right to see what I could do to find out how the system was working, not only in London but in various parts of the country. I visited a number of the area offices. I have myself gone from door to door in division after division. Many hon. Members do not know that I have been there because I desired to do it unknown and quietly, to see how the thing was done and to have some idea what was actually going on in the houses concerned. One or two remarks have been made about tactlessness, but I hope, if there is tactlessness, the Members concerned will take appropriate action. Every local area officer has his district officer and, if there is any trouble in any division, the Member of Parliament should at once see the district officer so that the truth can be found out one way or the other as to whether the thing is well done or not.
My impression, which is confirmed from many quarters and by many Members, is that the local area officers are doing their work extraordinarily well and with very great understanding of the circumstances of those who come to them and, more than that, with very great sympathy and a desire to do what the Act was originally intended to do—to make this new system of an independent statutory board a more humane means of dealing with the able-bodied unemployed. I am aware of some divisions where Members go home for the week-end and regularly meet their supporters and get their individual cases brought to them, and their practice is to go to the area officer and put the cases to him. There are other cases where that is not the practice. That is an illustration of the difficulty of dealing with the problem, in that the bulk of the difficult cases and the bulk of the problems do not arise over a large area of the country but arise specially in particularly difficult districts.
It is easy to get up and ask for the abolition of the means test, and it is quite simple to bring forward hard cases. If any Member has a particular case that he knows of, if he will send it on to me I will at least have it inquired into although I have no statutory power. Members have voiced hard cases in hundreds of letters to me, but I have been surprised in the last nine months not at the number of hard cases that have come

to me but rather at the smallness of the number, although I do not want to belittle the kind of exceptional case that has been brought. Let me put another side of this case. The House and the country have got to be challenged later to face the issue whether unemployment assistance ought to be given without a test of need. It is a point which Members generally, and all of us on this bench, now or in the future will have to face. There is a double issue. The first is whether there should be a means test at all, and the second, if there is to be one, what kind of test ought it to be. I rather gather that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) is more concerned with what kind of test it ought to be. Hon. Members opposite would sweep the whole thing away.
Let me give the House some of the results of my travels and researches. I will simply state the eases without saying anything about the results. They are not extreme cases. They are the kind of case that is constantly being brought before the board in the areas and I will pass no judgment upon them, but any one who analyses them will be bound to ask himself whether it is right or expedient from the point of view of the public good that public money should be given in these cases without some kind of determination of need. Take this case. The applicant is a general, labourer, married, age 55. He has three sons, aged 17, 20 and 24 and a daughter aged 22. That is a household of six. The son aged 17 earns 20s. 7d., the son aged 24, 40s. 2d., and the daughter 32s. id. a week. The son aged 20 is also n applicant for unemployment assistance. The rent is 7s. a week and the gross income of the house is 93s. 3d. In the second case the applicant is a married man aged 60, with four sons aged 16, 21, 25 and 28, and a daughter aged 19—a household of seven. The sons earn 10s., 30s., 30s. and 35s. per week and the daughter 8s. The rent is 9s. 4d. a week, and the gross income of the household is 113s.

Mr. LAWSON: Th. right hon. Gentleman is giving cases which he has investigated himself, I understand, and this kind of stuff will go out to the Press. May I ask him at t its point, therefore, seeing that there was a thorough investigation after the Regulations broke down as to the reasons, and a lot of cases


were handled, whether he will make the report available to the House instead of continuing to do this kind of thing?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member knows very well I have told him that when the matter has been completed all the information which the House needs, and which it ought to have to enable it to make up its mind upon the subject, will he made available.

Mr. LAWSON: Does that mean that we shall get the report?

Mr. BROWN: Of course, you will have the board's report. It does not mean that you will have any particular set of documents that have been sent to me by the board during the course of the whole of the investigations, but everything that is relevant, and which the House ought to have with regard to making up its mind upon the subject, will, of course, be produced.

Mr. LAWSON: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman will give us the report made on the investigation after the Regulations broke down?

Mr. BROWN: I did not say that.

Mr. LAWSON: It is no, good the right hon. Gentleman using material in this way unless he gives us the report of the investigation.

Mr. BROWN: There is no need for the hon. Member to be passionate about it. The hon. Member for Gorbals seems to be surprised at my moderation.

Mr. GRENFELL: In view of the publicity which may be given to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, does he think that it is worth while giving these cases to the House, when the average maintenance provided in respect of them is only 15s. per person per week?

Mr. BROWN: That is so. Hon. Members come down to the House and use individual cases, and I am not passing judgment, but merely stating the kind of cases. After all, the House has to make up its mind, if it is to deal with this matter, whether or not in certain cases, or in all or none of them, it is a case of need.

Mr. HARDIE: When the right hon. Gentleman makes a case in the aggre-

gate, does he forget that individual insurance exists? Should not the individual responsibility in regard to unemployment insurance be maintained? Should he not seek to include in the family only those for whom the insured individual is responsible? Is there any sense or justice in an insurance scheme which does not do this?

Mr. BROWN: This has nothing to do with insurance. When persons have exhausted insurance benefit they come to the board's officer and ask for public money, and I am quoting the ordinary cases which come before the board. The hon. Member for Gorbals will say that I was justified in giving consideration to them.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Even if they had double the amount per week.

Mr. BROWN: That view will not be as widely shared as some hon. Members in this House would suggest. I will take one or two more cases. Here is the case of a family of five. The applicant is a cabinet-maker, single, aged 19, living with his father, mother, brother and sister—five in the household. The father earns 129s. 9d. per week, the brother, aged 15, earns 10s. a week, rent is 11s. 5d., and there is a sub-let at 6s. a week, leaving a net rent of 5s. 5d. The gross income of that family is 139s. 9d. I have a number of other cases, but I will not detain the House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If they are all like that, then go on. I want to hear something that is really damaging.

Mr. BROWN: I have no desire to use anything damaging except to show that those who desire to abolish the test of need must justify the payment of public funds in respect of households in which sums of money amount to that figure.

Mr. HARDIE: That does not apply to anybody else.

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member is very passionate. This problem, however, will not be solved by passion but by reason and judgment. Those of us who are applying our minds to the problem have every bit as much sympathy for the unemployed as the hon. Member who interjects now, and desire to get these hard and difficult problems solved. We know that the bulk of our problems arise from


this very simple thing, that there has always been a household test under the Poor Law. The hon. Member opposite may say "Shame," but it has been the rule for many years in this country. There have been many investigations into the question of whether or not there could be another test of need and except in one particular report, which I have in mind, each continuous investigation has come to the conclusion that, if there is to be a test for need for applicants who make application for public funds, it must be in terms of household. What happens? We have our uncovenanted benefit, extended benefit, and transitional payments paid under a test administered by local authorities in 1931. My problem, and the problem of the board and of the House is that, whereas some local authorities administer the money of the State, the transitional payments, with the same care with which they administer the money of their own ratepayers, there is another class of authority who do not do that, but are more lax. Hon. Members opposite would say that they are more generous with State money than they are with local money. [Interruption.] The hon. Member has many friends in his own part of the country and knows quite well, when they are dealing with the Poor Law in towns and villages in his area, the attitude taken by the local administrator dispensing public funds raised from rates, is not the same as the attitude which is taken up by the administrator when he is administering public funds.
The next and most difficult point is that where local authorities administer transitional payments from State money, they do not make any attempt to administer the test of need. The problem which I have to solve, and which the House will have to solve later in connection with the test of need, is how to justify the granting of public money where resources are sufficient for the needs of the household. The problem we have to solve in connection with the needs test and the other detailed points raised this morning, is how we can do what we said we would do in our Election Manifesto, namely, maintain the authority of the board, improve the arrangements under the board, maintain the intention of the Act, remedy certain abuses and alter the method of administering the means test, so that we

might have due regard to the things about which hon. Members opposite have been so eloquent this morning, namely, the potential or real breaking up of family life and the maintenance of the family unit, and that we should do this gradually and in full association with public opinion. Hon. Members may rest assured that the individual eases put this morning, including the technical point put by the hon. Member opposite, and the inquiry about the circular, will be considered. The hon. Member opposite knows how hard it is to estimate in numbers of cases what would have been the transitional rate. That is where the point he raised comes in, bit I will inquire into the matter and let him know. The board, which I remind the House is a statutory authority, will follow the same lines that have been followed for years in successive Governments by the Ministry of Labour, namely, to lay upon the Table of the House all the important circulars which the House would desire to have and which it is entitled to have in the matter.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What about this circular?

Mr. BROWN: I am not sure about that. Those who have been listening to the Debate and have come to the conclusion that there is feeling about the application of the test of need will also realise that there is division of opinion among those who want to alter the system. There are some who desire to abolish it. As far as we are concerned we shall do our best, and that very soon, to present to the House improved arrangements for doing a difficult thing and administering a uniform system, with due regard to local opinion, for this very varied country of Great Britain.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman has been studiously vague about the publication of the report. Can he give the House some indication, because this is a matter of very grave concerne, when the report is likely to be published? Further, will he give us an undertaking for which we are entitled to ask, that a proper amount of time will elapse between the presentation of the report aid the Debate on it?

Mr. BROWN: In regard to the latter point, the House will, of course, be


entitled to sufficient notice in order to give proper consideration to whatever documents are laid.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The last time you did not give much notice.

Mr. BROWN: We shall have due regard to that matter. In regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, he has been an administrator himself in high office and he knows that until decisions are made it is impossible to give a definite answer. I can, however, say that the investigations are nearly completed and that the House will not have to wait long after Easter.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Is it to be April, Nay or June? Once we get to mid-summer day we are out of the spring season. Is it to be this month, next month or June? This is matter that affects the majority of Members of the House very much.

Mr. BROWN: The right hon. Gentleman may put the question that way, but I come back to my original statement that they will know in the spring, and I mean the spring of 1936. I might remind the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) that there is another poem about spring, and it is this:
The storms of wintry time will quickly pass
And one unbounded spring encircle all.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman spend Easter reading Hutchinson's "When Winter Comes"?

POTATO DUTIES ORDER.

1.49 p.m.

Captain RAMSAY: I and my Friends wish to raise a subject of considerable importance, the removal of the Potato Duties. Although there are not many hon. Members present, that is no reflection as to the gravity of the subject. We make no apology for raising the question. The removal at such short notice of all the duties on potatoes other than new, has filled the whole of the agricultural community of this country not only with astonishment but with dismay. They have seen overnight, as it were, the processes which they have spent years in building up threatened, and threatened in the teeth of the advice not only of their own elected representatives but of the Potato Marketing Board, which the Government set up to advise on this

subject. We contend that the two Orders annulling these duties are unnecessary, have been hastily issued and that they are unwanted by the state either of prices, of supplies, or of the quality of potatoes in the country at the present time.
The Import Duties Advisory Committee—I should be the last to criticise them whenever it can be avoided, because I have the greatest admiration for them—are servants of this House and we are bound to call attention to the fact that they did not place any advertisement in the newspapers of the intended removal of the duties. On the showing of the Potato Marketing Board the opportunities of consultation afforded were of the very slenderest nature. There are messages from people all over the country who say that they would have liked to have been consulted. They cannot understand why an advertisement was not put in the newspapers, so that they might have stated their views. In mitigation of this error on the part of the Advisory Committee in recommending the removal of these duties it might be said that they were possibly or probably misled by the quotas fixed by the Board of Trade, erroneously and in the teeth of the firm and clearly expressed opinion of the Potato Marketing Board, whose business it is to estimate the supplies available in the country.
To elaborate my point I must go back to December of last year, when these quotas were fixed. At that time the prices of potatoes had been rising for some weeks. At Perth the price since November had risen from 60s. to 90s. a ton and at Spalding from 85s. to 120s. There was a great difference of opinion between the Board of Trade and the Potato Marketing Board on two points. The first was that the Board of Trade were under the impression that this rise in prices was going to continue. The Potato Marketing Board took the very definite opposite view that the prices were somewhere very near the peak. The second point of difference was that the Board of Trade, or the authorities on the one side concerned with estimating supplies and fixing the quotas, believed or feared that the supplies might be short, while the Potato Marketing Board said that in their opinion supplies were adequate and the quotas did not need to be large. In the teeth of that


advice, quotas were fixed for this month which in the opinion of the Potato Marketing Board were greatly excessive. The Potato Marketing Board is the authority set up by this House to find out what is the correct figure, and if they do not know, why should someone else be supposed to know better. In the teeth of this advice quotas were fixed in December last for the import of potatoes during these present months which, if the Board's opinion were worth anything, if fulfilled would produce chaos. Their opinion was that there would be shortage if the quotas were not fulfilled.
These excessive quotas so fixed have been used as one of the main arguments and one of the main levers used by the importers of potatoes in their representations to the Tariff Advisory Committee in order to persuade them that because of these monstrous duties, these reasonable quotas which had been fixed were not being complied with. The Tariff Advisory Committee on these false premises recommended the removal of the duties in order that the quotas might be fulfilled, but we are still of the opinion and the Potato Marketing Board is still of the opinion that if the quotas were fulfilled the result would be disastrous to the potato market. Take the position to-day. The people who champion the Orders removing the duties—and I have spoken to a few of them lately—have said, "You take your stand on supplies, but we cannot get potatoes, we cannot buy potatoes."
I have telegrams here from all over Great Britain from people who are prepared to sell 85,000 tons of potatoes here and now. [An HON. MEMBER: "What commission? "] No commission at all. I have a telegram from a firm in Boston, Lincolnshire, who are prepared to place 44,000 tons of potatoes for immediate delivery, and another telegram from a firm in Montrose offering them at £5 per ton. There is no foundation in the argument that there is any lack of quantity. Then we come to the question of quality. Several people have said to me: "You may be able to supply all these potatoes, but they are not worth eating." I have telegrams from the best authorities in the country on the subject of quality. I have one from the same firm in Boston which says that the quality of the 44,000 tons of

potatoes is exceptionally good. It remarks:
Winter storage conditions ideal, remaining stocks sound, dry and in good condition.
Here is another telegram from Perth:
I have made comprehensive inquiries regarding quality of potatoes offered by Scottish merchants. They comprise Spaldings, King Edwards, Majesties; approximately 80 per cent. are of first class quality, and 15 per cent. of second class.
We, therefore, say that all the arguments of the Potato Board are justified, that there is not only a plentiful supply but that they are of good quality. And it must be remembered that the 85,000 tons of potatoes which are ready for immediate delivery are not the total stocks of potatoes in the country or anywhere near it. We are prepared to send these potatoes round to the Board of Trade in plain vans within four days. Then there is the question of price. In December the first sharp division of opinion was in regard to quantity and the second as regards price. The Potato Board believed that prices had reached the peak, or very near it. The importers—I should hate to suggest who they might be although some hon. Members might suggest names—insisted that the board should run the risk of prices going through the roof, and the apprehensiveness, which has led to the fixing of these high quotas, was allowed to gain the upper hand. We reached the peak of potato prices about 14th January last, and then Spaldings declined from 135s. to 122s. 6d.—I believe they are to-day at 120s. In Perth prices have fallen during the same period from 100s. to 90s.
Although there are plenty of stocks in the country, although the quality is good and prices are falling, the duty is suddenly removed. Is it any wonder that there is some apprehension in the country? People who would like to attack the board refer to the £5 per acre, and ask, "Why do you make this a close corporation? Why not reduce the amount of £5 per acre?" They evidently are unaware of this most important fact. The basic acreage was fixed at 671,000 acres in 1933; to-day we have only 595,000 acres under cultivation. It is not the £5 per acre that is keeping production back. It is nothing but the price. How can we expect the farmers of this country to increase production,


if, the moment prices become remunerative and there is an opportunity of getting somewhere near our basic acreage, these duties are removed on the representation of the importers? At the moment we are engaged in a gigantic task, as far as the agricultural community is concerned, in trying to make potatoes a reliable and stable crop, which will be not only of financial benefit to the farming community but a food asset in times of stress and emergency. This kind of action at the moment when there appears to be profits is not likely to produce very satisfactory results. It must be remembered that the potato industry has been making losses for years. Is it never to be allowed to recoup itself for the lean years? It is not calculated to encourage an extension of our potato acreage if at the moment we are doing so action like this is taken.
We have set up a Marketing Board, and it is not very encouraging for them to do their duty, or calculated to make them keen in the exercise of their duties, if they feel that His Majesty's Government will take action of this kind in disregard of their advice. The Government are like people who by an expensive dog and then insist on barking themselves, and, incidentally, up the wrong tree. We have established a whole system of agricultural marketing boards throughout the industry. Only a few nights ago we set up another one in Scotland —the Raspberry Marketing Board. What are these people going to think when they see the treatment which is meted out to this Marketing Board, which has been the first to make a success of its job? Will they be encouraged to make a success of their own job, or will they follow the example of the miners and ca'canny? Who is going to benefit? [An HON. MEMBER: "The landlord.] There is only one person who will benefit. The £1 per ton cannot be passed on to the consumer, and the only person who will benefit is the importer. I would not like to suggest who they are, but probably hon. Members will have an idea. I have heard that the Co-operative Societies are trying to get 26,000 tons of Polish potatoes cheap.
I hope the Minister is not going to say in the historic words of an historic Liberal, "Wait and see," because we contend that in this case all the arguments are clearly on our side as regards

both quantity and price. If the Parliamentary Secretary declines to yield our point then we say that at least the case for the importers has not been proved. It is not a case in which those who represent the whole of the agricultural community, the marketing board system, the growers, producers and merchants, should be asked to wait and see how severe the fight is going to be. It is not very encouraging for the man behind barbed wire when he finds that the barbed wire has been cut to be told that he can just wait and see how deadly the coming attack is going to be. We shall not be content if we are told to wait and see. I would only say that although we be few here to-day and we come in peace, we hope my hon. Friend will not ask us to wait and see, because if he does I must inform him that we shall come again and push this matter to a Division at the earliest possible opportunity.

2.6 p.m.

Captain W. T. SHAW: I would like to add my protest to that which has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Captain Ramsay). The producers of potatoes have not had a great opportunity of putting their case before the Import Duties Advisory Committee. I do not know when this advice came to the Treasury, and I do not know whether it was properly considered. I notice that the order is signed by two of the Junior Lords of the Treasury, and I hope they are not to be held responsible for the removal of the duty. From the Front Bench and from almost every platform in the country we have heard the principal Government speakers take great credit for the enormous return of confidence that has come in the country since the National Government took office. I hope they are not attributing that confidence to any great belief in the personal qualities of the Ministers. We do not treat them as, or believe them to be, supermen. This return of confidence is due in the main to the change that has been made in the fiscal policy of this country. It is upon that fiscal policy that this confidence rests. If we have an Order which indicates that that policy is insecure and may be swept away almost over-night, there will be a return to the conditions of 1931.
I cannot think there is any justification for the removal of this duty. The


price of potatoes is certainly not excessive. In my county in Scotland, a county which I believe produces the largest amount of potatoes in Scotland, the price did not exceed £6 a ton and was usually between £4 and £5 a ton. I do not think that can be considered an excessive price. As far as I can see, the removal of this duty has not helped the consumer. I think the only people who have been or are to be helped by it are the importers and the middlemen. My domestic information is that the price of potatoes to the ordinary consumer has not fallen since the duty was removed. When I have my dinner in one of the dining-rooms of this House, I have to pay exactly the same price for potatoes as I did before. The whole benefit of the removal of this duty is to go into the pockets of the middlemen.
The removal of the duty has certainly had a disastrous effect upon producers in my constituency. In the market town of Angus, I am told it is practically impossible to sell potatoes at the moment, and it may interest the representative of the Board of Trade—I see there is no representative of the Treasury on the Front Bench—to know that in my constituency people are asking themselves whether, if potatoes had been as important to the trade and industry of Birmingham as they are to Angus, this duty would have been removed. In that case would this recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee have been accepted with the rapidity with which it has been?
As usual the Scottish agricultural industry has suffered more than the English agricultural industry. Owing to climatic and other conditions the producers in Scotland are not able to market their potatoes as early in the season as the producers in England, so that the removal of the duty is hitting the Scottish producer far more in proportion than it is the English producer. I am very sorry no representative of the Scottish Office is present to-day, because I wanted to impress upon the Secretary of State for Scotland the necessity for treating this matter urgently, and I wanted to ask him whether he would not use his influence with the Government to have this duty reimposed at dm earliest pos-

sible moment. I appreal to the Prime Minister, to the Lord President of the Council, and to the Home Secretary, whom I saw sitting here only a few moments ago, because in the Government Manifesto issued during the General Election we were assured that Scottish agriculture
will be the subject of special care and attention.
I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will bring this matter very prominently and urgently before the whole Cabinet, including the three right hon. Gentlemen to whom I have referred.
Within the last two months the Secretary of State for Scotland has set up a new committee to inquire into the labour conditions of agricultural workers in Scotland. There is no class of the agricultural community with whom I have greater sympathy than the agricultural workers in Scotland. They have suffered enormously, and for a long time. They have not had the rise in wages which has come to many agricultural workers in England. I think the Secretary of State for Scotland must remember that the first essential to an improvement in the conditions of the agricultural workers in Scotland, and the workers in any industry, is to see that the industry is put upon a profitable basis and upon a sound economic footing. I venture to think that the reimposition of this duty would do far more to improve the position of agricultural workers in. Scotland than would be done by 20 committees to inquire into conditions Therefore, I say that from the point of view of the Scottish farmers, the producers, and the farm workers, this duty ought to be reimposed at the earliest possible moment.

2.13 p.m.

Major DORMAN-SMITH: I would like to add my voice to the contentions that have been made regarding this matter. It may be said that the growers are squealing before they have been hurt, and that since this duty has been removed for so short it Time, the moment has not yet come to make a protest; but I suggest that probably the boot is on the other foot, and that it is the importers who are shouting before they have been hit. In fact, the markets have been disturbed, and are at this moment


very disturbed indeed. It is true to say that the market is almost stagnant at the present moment and that the sales are not going forward with anything like the frequency or the amount that they should be. The growers are profoundly disturbed and the buyers are waiting to see what will happen. I suggest that the growers have every reason to be disturbed. There could be only one valid reason so far as I can see for removing this duty, and that would be if there were, in fact, a genuine shortage which would be liable to raise prices unduly. If that were the case, I do not think there is a single grower who would make any complaint about the duty being taken off; but there is no shortage, and the Marketing Board, who ought to know, and whose prophecies so far have been very accurate—I suggest a little more accurate than those of one or two of the Departments concerned—are of the opinion that the normal supply in this country, plus the ordinary imports on which duty would be paid, would well meet all the demands of the consumer.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: Is it not the fact that in February, following a census, the board estimated a shortage of 63,000 tons? Was not that the estimate on which the authorities were going?

Major DORMAN-SMITH: That was for one week. After that ascertainment another was made and Northern Ireland came in with a substantial amount of potatoes. It was also found from the other returns coming in that there were more potatoes than the board had originally estimated.

Sir F. ACLAND: I only wanted to be sure that the fact should not be ignored that the Potato Marketing Board itself at one time estimated a fairly considerable shortage.

Major DORMAN-SMITH: That is really the whole point. If the Board of Trade had kept in closer touch with the Potato Marketing Board or had given more heed to what the board eventually ascertained, there would have been no need at all for this duty to have been taken off. What the board are frightened of at present is that, if there is a vast import of potatoes, there will be a glut. The potato is not a very romantic plant and one would not say that it is a very

sensitive plant, but it does create a most sensitive market. In 1932, when there was only a surplus of some 9 per cent., prices to growers were reduced by 50 per cent. Over the last 12 years, when there have been small surpluses or small deficits, there has been a range of prices from £2 6s. to 7s., although production has varied only from 3.5 to 4.7 million tons. That shows that the market is very sensitive, and the utmost care has to be taken not unduly to disturb the market without very good cause. I am forced to wonder whether in fact the Import Duties Advisory Committee or those who have sponsored their report have gone fully into the matter or have taken all these facts into consideration. It is the violent fluctuations brought about by these disturbances which have been the bugbear of people in the potato industry, and it was in order to do away with the fluctuations that producers agreed to set up a Marketing Board. We did not set it up to try to hold consumers to ransom.

Mr. G. HARDIE: An admission has been made that there was a shortage for one week, and I accept the statement that it was only for one week, but it is said—and sometimes what is said turns out to be true—that there are attempts to hold up supplies or to hide supplies. Having taken great interest in the question of potato supplies in Scotland, I have taken trouble to make inquiries and I have discovered that in Glasgow, for instance, there was a hold-up, and when that was broken potatoes were sold at 30s. a ton instead of the previous price of £3 15s.

Major DORMAN-SMITH: Returns do not all come in at the same time. Farmers are getting more used to filling up forms, but they are not yet absolute experts. It was on later ascertainments that the board were able to make representations. As I was saying, this board was set up to try to maintain a steady flow of potatoes on the market at a level price, and those potatoes were to be grown on British soil. That was one of the important things. In order to maintain the acreage of potatoes there must be confidence in the future. If confidence is shaken there can be no doubt that we shall get back to the situation where the growing of potatoes will be just a gamble and producers will never know what they are going to get, so that we


shall have to rely more and more on imported potatoes. That I think would be to the detriment of the country as a whole.
During the board's life it has been trying to create that feeling of confidence in the minds of the growers. It has been trying to persuade growers that the Government are in fact going to carry out pledges made to agriculturists. The board has been trying hard to do that and has been setting about its appointed task to try to correlate the supply with demand, which I think must appeal to all those who are thinking about import boards. Now it looks to the farmers of the country as if directly they get anything like a reasonable price and think they can look forward with confidence, the Government come along and take action to depress prices and to put farmers back in the old feeling of insecurity. I do not believe that prices are unduly high at the present time. If you compare present prices with prices which ruled before the board came into office—taking a similar year, 1931—you will find that potatoes now are some £2 cheaper than they were in that year, which was a year of more or less similar production. I think that that shows that the board is striving to keep a level price.
I do not want to criticise the Import Duties Advisory Committee, because I have the utmost respect for what they have done, but they have to deal with a variety of trades and a very wide variety of applications, and it may be that in some cases they will make mistakes and errors. This may be a case in which they were rather in error and were rather rushed over the applications. As far as the National Farmers' Union is concerned, we heard of the application on 2nd March, and the duty came off on 24th March. Action was taken after only an informal talk with those who represent producers' interests. There was no chance for them to give a considered opinion on the matter. Therefore I hope that some steps will be taken to put back the duty. If marketing boards are going to continue and if new boards are to be set up I think that those who are called upon to carry out that policy may find it very difficult if this is the type of action that is going to be taken. I hope we shall have some assurance that the Government will give adequate pro-

tection and maintain conditions under which it will be possible for these boards to continue.

2.24 p.m.

Mr. ORR-EWING: It was with some sense of alarm that I listened to the speeches which have been made by hon. Members on this subject. I am a very warm supporter of everything that pertains to the good of the agricultural industry, and in what I am going to say I do not want to seem to imply that there is any weakening on my part in supporting any steps that can reasonably be taken to improve the conditions of any branch of that industry. In spite of the fact that hon. Members have said they do not wish to attack the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and in spite of the kind words which have been said about that body, it appears to me that, in fact, an attack is being made on that committee and that the question which we are being asked to consider is one which ought to be considered by that committee and by that committee alone. As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent any body representing growers of potatoes from submitting new evidence to the committee and it seems to me that this House, having decided wisely some months ago to put this question of duties into the hands of the committee, it would be wrong for us to do anything this afternoon which would imply any lessening of, or any wish to lessen the powers of that committee which has to consider the case as it is submitted from all sides.
I believe that an even graver danger is involved in this matter. We see a battle of evidence between the Potato Marketing Board and other branches of the administration. The first duty of the Marketing Board is to represent the interests of the growers of potatoes. There need be no concealment of the fact that a body so representing the producers is bound to put forward the producers' case as strongly as it can be put forward. I would not accuse the hoard of ignoring the consumers' case, but obviously the board has not so much at heart the putting forward of the consumers' case as the putting forward of the producers' case. Again I would point out that it is open to other bodies representing the consumers and it may be representing other branches of the growers, to put forward evidence to the committee.

Major DORMAN-SMITH: Part of the case is that there was no chance to put forward proper evidence.

Mr. ORR-EWING: I think that bears out my first argument that evidence was not produced before the committee. We are informed that there was some gap between 2nd March and 24th March. During that period evidence might have been put forward, and if that evidence was not put forward, there is nothing to prevent it being submitted to the committee now. To claim that the Potato Marketing Board should have absolute power to over-ride any other evidence which is submitted by other bodies, would be a very dangerous claim indeed. Though I am strongly in favour of the setting up of these marketing boards and of the steps which have been taken to organise every branch of the agricultural industry, yet I shudder at the possible results of arguments such as those put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Captain Ramsay). What would be the result if his argument were carried to a final conclusion. It would be to give dictatorial powers to the marketing boards.

Captain RAMSAY: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent what I said. What I said was that in a period when the case was, at least, not proven, it is the importer, not the producer, who should wait and see.

Mr. ORR-EWING: With all due respect, I do not think that affects the argument. We come back to the statement that the case is not proven and again I submit that if new evidence exists, it is still open to those concerned to submit that evidence. We can only take it that the committee considered that the case had been proven. They are not going to take action on a case in which they have not satisfied themselves that there is sufficient evidence. But the evidence which they had they obviously considered sufficient. Therefore this is really an attack on the manner in which the committee has carried out its work. I fear the results of the carrying out of a policy such as the hon. and gallant Member indicated, and I feel certain that if this case is forced and if over-riding powers are claimed for these marketing boards, those who do so will deal a death blow

to the prestige of the agricultural industry.

2.30 p.m.

Sir RONALD ROSS: I think the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) is under a misapprehension. I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Captain Ramsay), who made such a closely-reasoned speech, for one moment claimed that the Potato Marketing Board should have dictatorial powers. Far from that, what he said was that on the merits of this case and on the facts of the situation there was no proper justification for taking off this duty. I speak not only for myself but for every Member from Northern Ireland who has taken his seat in this Parliament and who represent an agricultural constituency.

Mr. MacLAREN: And Scotland, too‡

Sir R. ROSS: Yes, we in Northern Ireland are akin to our friends across the water in Scotland. Sometimes even our names are not dissimilar and certainly many of our problems are the same. I see with regret that we have here to-day representing the Government my hon. Friend who so ably and with such a versatility acts as Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. We all know of those articles with obscure names which are granted drawbacks or on which additional duties are imposed, and we know that my hon. Friend is conspicuously successful in dealing with them, but is he truly and at heart an agriculturist 7 I do not think the ordinary farmer or agricultural labourer, looking at my hon. Friend, would come to that conclusion, and I regret that we have not on the Front Bench to-day the Minister for Agriculture. This is not merely an Import Duties Order affecting a small sectional interest. It is a big question affecting agricultural policy.
As regards Northern Ireland we have a limited compass in agriculture. We cannot produce wheat though we pay the subsidy to the wheat-growing areas and do so -without complaint. We cannot grow sugar beet. We rely on oats and cattle and the position in regard to oats has been desperate. As regards cattle, trade has not been good and prices have been bad. I hear occasional murmurs from hon. Members opposite. I do not


know what those murmurings are about but I would point out that in order to help the South Wales coal miners, cattle is being allowed into this country from the Irish Free State to the detriment of people who are trying to produce cattle and who have perhaps a lower standard of living than the miners. As regards potatoes this was the first year for many years in which we in Northern Ireland looked like being able to sell our agreed quota of 200,000 tons in the markets of Great Britain. That quota was agreed upon with the Northern Ireland Potato Marketing Association.
For a number of years we have been producing at a loss. Recently, as a result of the policy of the Government, growers in Great Britain have been producing more potatoes for their own countrymen, that is to say for the British market and the increase has gone far more in proportion to the English and Scottish growers than to the Northern Ireland growers. But we had one function. We provided the reserve. We provided a large quantity of potatoes as a pool which could be called upon, in the event of a shortage and, as I understand it, an undertaking was given that, if there was a shortage, then Northern Ireland would be asked for more potatoes. I hesitate to use the term "breach of faith" until I have heard an explanation, and I must say that I regret that we have only the technical side of the Board of Trade represented here to answer this question, because it is a big question, and we understood that we had an undertaking that we were to be called upon to see what we could do before any steps were taken to increase supplies from abroad.
When this matter came up Northern Ireland at once said that, without decreasing the normal quota which they were sending across, they could immediately supply a further 25,000 tons to this country. Nevertheless, the duty was taken off, and it is a position which is very hard to understand. Who asked for this duty? Not the consumer, so far as I know. The Committee were approached by a group of importers, but those importers have been buying potatoes at less than the cost of production from my constituents for the last three years, and they have got the duty taken off foreign potatoes. On what ground? On the ground that when they were buying

potatoes at from £5 to £6 per ton from the producer, they could not sell them at anything less than £12 to £14 a ton on the retail market. Hon. Members opposite are always poking for opportunities to denounce the excess profits on various forms of capitalist enterprise, and here I am handing them something which may be of use to them.

Mr. HARDIE: Hear, hear.

Sir R. ROSS: There is an opportunity especially to the hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Hardie), who seems to be as voluble on this subject as on the subject of unemployment. Let him and his friends look into this matter and see if they can get any charges of profiteering or exploitation out of it.

Mr. HARDIE: We have been doing that for years, with retail and every other kind of profiteering.

Sir R. ROSS: The hon. Member has been fairly lively to-day, and I will not give way to him, as I think we have had quite enough from him for to-day. The suggestion that there was a shortage of potatoes is entirely unfounded, because in December the shipments from Northern Ireland were 28,000 tons a month. In February they had fallen to 24,000 tons a month, and that was at a time when there is generally a seasonal increase, a time when we expect the supply which we send over the water to increase. The drop was not due to lack of supplies, because we had plenty of supplies, lots of potatoes. It was due to lack of orders, and it is astonishing to me, in the face of those facts, to see this duty taken off at this time.
The potato producers, not only from my constituency and my country, but from Scotland and England as well, are exposed to subsidised competition. We know that heavy subsidies are paid, for instance, on Dutch potatoes. There is another consideration. As regards the Irish Free State, they have had a fairly heavy subsidy on their own potatoes. What is the result of this Order? They are reducing it proportionately, and so the money which was put on as an export bonus and which went, very appropriately, to the British Treasury, is now merely being saved to the Irish Free State Treasury, which does not have to put it on. It puts on just enough to see


whether it can get in on our market and undercut the home producer, who gets no subsidy.
As soon as the duty came off, there was a falling off of orders. The retailer is only human, and if he thinks he can get cheap potatoes from abroad, he will wait a bit. The producer has not held up any potatoes. Certainly ours never held up potatoes, but were only too eager this year, after about three years of producing at a loss and having great difficulty in selling any potatoes at all, to get an opportunity of selling their crops. This whole question shakes the confidence of people connected with agriculture to a very serious extent. It goes further than the mere question of potatoes; it affects the whole basis of agriculture, and I hope my hon. Friend—and I have heard him deal so well with so many subjects—will treat this matter as broadly as he can, but I regret that it is being treated purely as a Departmental matter and not on the wide, broad basis of the general agricultural policy of this country.

2.41 p.m.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: I should like to associate myself with many of the remarks which have fallen from the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross). I should like to see this matter treated as one of the broader questions of agriculture, for reasons which I will deal with in a minute or two, but before I come to my main point, I would like to say to the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F, Acland), on the subject of the 60,000 tons shortage, that I understand that that was the position as estimated in February, but at that time there was an import of 5,000 tons a month coming in, which it was anticipated would take care of that shortage, and if the present rate of imports was maintained at 5,000 tons, there would actually be a surplus. Therefore, that makes it all the less a reason why it should be necessary to take off the duty.
What I really wanted to say was once again to call attention to some of the rather peculiarly Scottish aspects of this question, because in this case Scotland is getting more hardly hit than England. Let me remind the House that the potato crop is of the very first importance to Scotland, but it is also of very great importance to English growers, because they draw one-third of their seed

from Scotland, and this year they have drawn about two-thirds. It has been the habit of Scottish potato producers to market their crop later than the English growers, that is to say, from March till May, and the result is that they suffer from a shrinkage and from disease, and they naturally expect, when the time comes, to get better prices. That is partly done by arrangement with English growers, so that the Englishmen can get their crop cleared off the market, and the Scottish people hold off so as not to make a glut in the earlier part of the season. Therefore, it is all part of one general scheme and not merely a piece of Scottish grab and waiting to get the best prices.
What happened on this occasion was that this duty was taken off at the very time when the Scottish people were going to begin to bring their crop into the market. There is no shortage—I am assured of that—but since this duty has been taken off there has been a stoppage. People have stopped either buying or selling, and it is particularly hard on Scotland, because, like the Northern Ireland people, we depend very largely on cattle and on oats, both of which, particularly oats, are suffering from a very serious depression. We were really hoping we should make a small profit out of potatoes this year, but at this critical moment this blow falls on us, and it will be an extremely serious matter. I should be the last ever to desire to see prices forced up against the consumer above a reasonable limit. As has been pointed out, potato prices this year have not been high, and this year is one which follows on a series of very lean years for potato growers. Potatoes were actually being given away a few years ago in the streets of Aberdeen because there was no market for them at all and the growers could not get any price of any sort for them.
When this duty was taken off there was a drop in prices of between 5s. and 7s. 6d. a ton. That will be a very serious thing for Scottish potato growers. Another point I should like to emphasise is that potato growers, while they contain a certain number of big men, are largely small men growing less than five acres. Therefore, we are not here to plead the cause of the big men but to try and plead the cause very largely of


the small people who deserve a great deal of sympathy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) took a point of view with which I could not agree. It is that we want to see some of these boards given dictatorial powers. That is not my desire, for I think the House has a right to bring forward a Prayer or by some other means be able to call attention to the Import Duties Advisory Committee. While I have the greatest respect for that committee, I cannot admit that it should escape criticism from this House. I have no desire to see the Potato Marketing Board set up as a dictatorial body, but we ought to be allowed to call attention to a mistake that has been made by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. That is the duty of every Member of Parliament. I want to make a plea that this sort of thing should not happen quite in this way. An hon. Member explained that the object of this board is to try and get stability. If we are to have duties taken off as soon as prices reach a reasonable position, it will shake the confidence of every producer in the country. Not only the producers of potatoes, but producers of every other agricultural product will have their confidence shaken, because it is only natural that farmers who are growing oats, wheat, cattle or pigs will say that if this can be done in the case of potatoes it can be done with other things as well. I think that this Order will create an unfavourable impression throughout the agricultural industry. That is why I regret this decision and hope that if an application is made to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, as I think it has been, to get this duty restored, the committee will not hesitate to restore it because by their present action they have struck a serious blow at agricultural prosperity which we have been struggling so very hard to build up.

2.49 p.m.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I would like to supplement the eloquent plea which was advanced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Midlothian and Peebles (Captain Ramsay). I am sure that I am speaking on behalf of everybody in the House when I say that we are glad that the eloquence which he always displayed in the agricultural cause in the past will be supple-

mented in future by his membership of the Potato Marketing Board. I should also like to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing)—an amazing speech which amused, but did not surprise agricultural Members. He speaks for the industrial and agricultural centre of Weston-super-Mare and never loses any opportunity of telling the House what a good friend of agriculture he really is.

Mr. ORR-EWING: My hon. Friend is misinformed in regard to the constituency of Weston-super-Mare.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: We have hon. Members on the other side of the House who never lose any opportunity of decrying the agricultural cause. We know exactly where we stand with them: all farmers are profiteers. Whenever farming issues are discussed we are told, when we try to put the case for the primary producers of the land, that they are endeavouring to exploit the poor consumer. We do not expect to find this kind of criticism from our own side of the House. We are used to open enemies, and I hope I shall not be considered impudent if I quote the prayer of Canning, which we might apply to agriculture, to be saved from our candid friends. My hon. Friend said that he was in favour of the Potato Marketing Board, but the very fact that the board was set up by this House and secured the friendly acceptance of the producers throws the obligation on the House and the Government to see that the Government part of the bargain towards the producer is fulfilled. I much regret that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, whom I am glad to see here as a fellow Member from my own county of Bedfordshire, who knows something of our agricultural problems, is not backed up by the Minister of Agriculture because I feel strongly that what is at stake to-day is not so much this Import Order, but the good faith of the Government in the eyes of the mass of agricultural producers. It would be difficult for us to put the case for the control which nobody likes among our agricultural constituents if this question goes unchallenged and no remedy is forthcoming.
All sorts of queer stories are going about in Covent Garden and some agricultural districts, and I should be glad if my hon. Friend could make some reply


to the observations I am going to make. It is being said, I do not know with what truth, that importers a few weeks ago, believing that there would be—and wrongly believing—a considerable shortage of home supplies, bought up all the import licences that they could buy up, hoping to corner the market when the shortage became acute; that licences changed hands only a few months ago at £1 and 25s. a ton; and that when the shortage did not in fact occur the importers, with these charges on their hands, took steps to see that the Import Duties Advisory Committee were acquainted with the loss that they might suffer. As a result, the tariff has been scrapped with these rather absurd results. The importers have got back the £1 and 25s. a ton that they paid for the licences; the Treasury has lost the £1 Import Duty; the consumer is no better off, because there is still a charge upon the consumer; the importers who sold their right to import have got their £1 and 25s., and are happy because, as in the N.B.A. system of America, they are being paid for producing nothing; and the home producers have seen their own prices slump, in many cases by 15s. a ton.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who will reply for the Government, knows Bedfordshire problems as well as I do, even the agricultural problems, and if I cite one or two local instances, they will, I think, appeal to him in particular. He knows that in Bedfordshire, owing to the drought, the size of potatoes is not as large as usual, with the result that in those areas a considerable proportion of the crop was not put upon the market until the period beginning the 1st February. He knows also that in Bedfordshire that the high December and early January prices were largely due to the bad weather which made loading difficult. He knows too, I believe, that the fears entertained by the Board of Trade towards the end of last year, which fears were followed by the quotas being fixed, have not been fulfilled, that wholesale prices in our country have been falling, that supplies are quite adequate, and that towards the end of January in Bedfordshire and elsewhere there was even a small surplus. I took steps to find out the retail prices, because I agree with an hon. Member opposite that, if there is a real threat of an unfair burden to the consumer,

growers have no right, being a minority of the nation, to hold up the consumers to ransom. I found that at the beginning of this year King Edward potatoes were selling in my constituency at 10 lbs. for 1s. and Whites 12 lbs. for ls.—not an iniquitous price at this time of the year especially seeing that it comes after a series of bad seasons. As Spanish and Channel Island early potatoes are coming earlier than usual (it is a very good crop from the Channel Isle), there is little fear that the consumer will be exploited. As was pointed out by an hon. Member, the increase in ordinary licensed imports is quite adequate without the remission of duty to meet any possible shortage.
There has been a passage of arms between the right hon. Baronet for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) and hon. Members on this side, and I think he may be interested to know that in February this year, under the ordinary licensing system, imports have averaged about 80,000 cwts. a week, whereas in the corresponding month last year the imports were round about 9,000 cwts., showing that the shortage, if there was a shortage, is being more than made up by the increased imports from abroad. Losses may well be heavy. In my own constituency there has been a drop of 15s. a ton in the wholesale price. The figure in Bedfordshire on 3rd March was 135s. a ton—growers price—for King Edwards, and it has been replaced by the figure yesterday of 115s., and the price of the other crop grown very largely in my county, the Doone Star has fallen from 130s. to, 112s. 6d. In the price list issued to growers to-day in my county the minimum price at which they can sell to the shops shows a very substantial slump. I am afraid that a great many small samples grown under a form of contract between the board and the producers in my county will not be saleable, and when I see that in London to-day the prices, ex wharf, of imported potatoes are in some cases £3 15.s. to £4 a ton I am very much disturbed as to the effect on my own constituency.
Above all, there is the psychological reaction on the whole mass of the agricultural population. With immense difficulty, but loyal to the spirit that the Government have shown and to the scheme they put forward, we have won


round a very conservative part of the population to the idea of rigorous control. There were not wanting people who said "Once this control is planted on you the Government will go back on the bargain." We have always said the Government would not, and we still believe the Government will not, if they rid themselves of the complex of my hon. Friend the Member for Westonsuper-Mare that they must not interfere with the Import Duties Board. I do pray my hon. Friend and neighbour in the representation of this hard hit agricultural county to realise the obligation there is on the Government and to give us a satisfactory answer this afternoon.

2.57 p.m.

Mr. AMMON: I wish to emphasise one point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), in order that the Minister may deal with it. If there is any foundation for the statement which he made it raises a very serious question, and does point to a possible danger which many people said long ago would arise under Protection. The hon. Member said that as far as he could gather there had been a trafficking in licences.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: All I said was that that is being widely stated, but I did not make myself responsible for the statement.

Mr. AMMON: I was not saying that the hon. Member did make himself responsible for it. All I said was that he understood there had been a trafficking in licences. If that be true, obviously there has been gambling going on among potato producers and sellers at the expense of the consumers, and they are now coming to this House and asking us to do something whereby they shall be able to make good what they have lost in a gamble. If that be the case it is a very serious state of affairs, and I hope the Minister will not overlook that statement.

2.59 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): This is a day on which the House adjourns early, and I think there must be a number of hon. Members who desire to raise other points. I have been asked to make a reply to the case which has just been put forward, and as I shall be brief

in doing so I hope that none of the hon. Members who have taken part will feel that I am lacking in courtesy if I do not refer in detail to their speeches. We are discussing the propriety of the recommendations made by the Import Duties Advisory Committee o a 11th March, which were incorporated in the Order made by the Treasury- on 23rd March, 1936, to suspend the duty on potatoes other than new potatoes coming from abroad. The Import Duties Advisory Committee, in making this recommendation, expressly stated that it was not intended in any sense to be anything other than a temporary Measure, that they proposed to keep the whole of the factors of market supply and prices under review, and that if their anticipations were realised they would recommend that the duty should be reimposed. Therefore, I am not called upon to give any assurance to the House of this n being a permanent measure. On the face of it it was a temporary device to deal with what was conceived to be a temporary shortage and as exceptional set of conditions. I say that in order that there may be no question about it at all.
I share the view of the hon. Member who represents Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) that possibly a broad, general agricultural Debate could arise on what has taken place to-day. I think the House will appreciate that the putting of a duty on a foodstuff or the taking of a duty off a foodstuff is a matter which primarily is the concern of the consumers' Ministry, which is the Board of Trade, and it was in that capacity that I was asked to attend to-day to deal with this question purely from the consumers' point of view. Let the House understand one or two facts which, I am sure, are present to the minds of agriculturists but which I may be forgiven for repeating. Potatoes are an important item in the diet of our people, particularly among the working classes. If potatoes exceed a certain retail price the demand falls off, because the working classes are not able to include so many potatoes in their normal diet if the price is above that figure. Broadly speaking that figure is one penny per pound retail, and it is a matter of concern to the Board of Trade if the retail price of potatoes exceeds it.
There is no dispute that in this country, where very large quantities of potatoes are consumed every year, the quality of


the home-produced potato is considerably above that of imported potatoes. I am not referring to new potatoes or luxury brands but to main crop potatoes. The British main crop potato is of considerably higher quality than the imported varieties. There is, therefore, always a large import of foreign potatoes at a lower price than British potatoes, and those cheap potatoes find a ready market. I could indicate the areas where they find a market, though I do not think it is necessary to do so, but they go in a particular form of consumption which is quite widespread. The object of this Order may well have been to make large supplies of cheap foreign potatoes available in order that the retail prices of those potatoes might come below the penny, and it may well be that no effects whatever by way of loss will be caused to a British producer or a British merchant.
I am going to suggest to British growers, to British merchants, to everybody handling British main crop potatoes, that on the information at present available to His Majesty's Government there should be an outlet for all the potatoes they have got, at the normal prices of the season, if they are marketed in the ordinary way. I have no recommendation to give to growers and merchants that they should hurriedly launch their stocks on to the market for fear of a fall in prices. On the contrary, I believe that the potato demand in this country is adequate to absorb the stock of homegrown potatoes at normal prices provided there is normal and orderly marketing.

Sir R. ROSS: Including Northern Ireland?

Dr. BURGIN: Yes, including Northern Ireland. When I come to Northern Ireland I must just refer to figures. It is a comforting thought that whereas last year 65,000 tons were imported from Northern Ireland, in the current year the imports have risen to 150,000 tons.

Sir R. ROSS: It ought to be 200,000.

Dr. BURGIN: Yes, the maximum is 200,000, but there has been an increase from 65,000 to 150,000 in a period of 12 months, and that is gratifying, as far as it goes. In the operation of a tariff, a body like the Import Duties Advisory Committee acts as a sluice gate. When

produce is coming in quantities from abroad, there is a possibility of an instant application to that body for the putting on of a duty to check it; when imports are coming too slowly and prices are maintained at too high a level in this country, up comes the sluice gate, the duty is taken off or reduced, in comes the foreign produce and down come the prices, or the goods are made available, as the case may be, according to whether you have been dealing with high prices or with a shortage.
I suggest that the factor which should determine the policy of such a Department as the Board of Trade is price. When there is a shortage in potential, in growth, or in quantities withdrawn from the market, the policy would be determined, broadly speaking, by the prices that are ruling. If prices are abnormally high, the irresistible inference is that there is a shortage, and if prices are abnormally low, the almost irresistible inference is that there is a great excess of supply over demand. I shall show in a moment that prices are most remunerative, and that the price levels are better than they have been for some time. They compare in an extraordinary manner with the prices that have ruled in previous years. Apart from evidence as to shortage, we have reference to the Potato Marketing Board, mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Major Dorman-Smith) and there is, of course, the Market Supply Committee set up under the Agricultural Marketing Act. There are a great many sources available to the Government, apart from the Potato Marketing Board, to show that there is a very considerable shortage. Quite apart from the shortage, I am prepared to leave to the good sense of the House the question whether price is a determining factor and signifies whether or not there is a shortage.

Captain RAMSAY: I accept the contention of the hon. Gentleman that price is the determining factor, but when you have a wholesale market in which the price is falling, your case ceases to exist. The contention of my hon. Friend is that this permitted inflow of foreign potatoes may be a device in order to keep down the retail price of potatoes, but what is really suggested is that this action of removing the duty is not primarily concerned with the wholesale price or the supply of potatoes, but is a device to keep down the retail price, and


the person who is to suffer by this device is the producer who is to receive the wholesale price at a lower rate.

Dr. BURGIN: I want to deal quite fairly with any argument that is put, but I want some basis of fact. It is not the fact that prices are falling. I have the weekly average prices per ton for King Edward VII and for Majestic potatoes over a long period of time, this year and last year and for any time that one likes to take, and so far from there being a fall of price—the fall in the principal markets since the withdrawal of the duty is something insignificant, like 2s. 6d. a ton, which makes not the slightest difference—

Captain RAMSAY: Is not the price falling?

Dr. BURGIN: No, the price is not falling. The price is rising.

Sir R. ROSS: That was the price for King Edwards.

Dr. BURGIN: I am giving the price for King Edwards and also for Majesties. I am taking two specimens of prices. I have only a certain limited number of statistics. It is a delusion to imagine that the prices to growers are not completely remunerative at the present time and that they are falling. That is the information of the Ministry of Agriculture, which I have had checked from all the markets to-day. With regard to the point as to slowness of movement and lack of orders to take up growers supplies, the House is probably aware that the price of potatoes abroad has been very high. Consequently, the imports have tended to be a good deal less, and one of the reasons for taking off this duty of £1 a ton was to make possible a higher price to an exporter of foreign potatoes to this country, in order to compensate him for not selling them somewhere else. I think the House will find that that is one of the reasons; and the main reason why there has been a relative slowness of movement is attributable to the main cause of the necessity for this Order, namely, the maintenance of an unduly high price.

Captain RAMSAY: The hon. Gentleman says that he takes price as the chief factor. I state here categorically, on the information of the Potato Marketing Board, that between the 18th January and

the 7th March the prize of first quality Majesties—which is supposed to be a very good guide to the market—fell at Spalding from 135s. to 122s. 6d., and at Perth from 100s. to 90s. Therefore I say that a time when the price was falling, if, as the hon. Gentleman says, and as I agree, the ultimate guide to the supply is the price, is no time to remove the duty.

Dr. BURGIN: I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. We must go into those facts again. On my basis the price of Majesties was from 136s. to 142s. in England and in Scotland the average price for certain selected varieties including Majesties was 120s. We seem to have got some differing figures. Mine are the average figures from the four principal markets, and were checked this morning.
With regard to the point that there was no advertisement, the object of advertisement is to ensure that the Import Duties Advisory Committee can procure before them all the information that they want relating to the problem which they have under review; it is not intended as a warning to merchants that there may be some variation in the price, but to enable the tribunal which is investigating the matter to be familiar with the whole problem. There was not much difficulty in ascertaining the whole potato problem. The committee called a meeting at which, if my information is correct, the Potato Marketing Board, the National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the principal industrial consumers, were represented, and were all able, therefore, to make their representations to the Import Duties Advisory Committee—

Major DORMAN-SMITH: Informally.

Dr. BURGIN: I do not mind how they did it; the point is to convey to the mind of the tribunal any representation that they desire to make. My hon. and gallant Friend says that it was informal. I have no means of determining whether it was formal or not, but there was a meeting for a joint discussion of the issues involved, and I am not sure that it makes any difference to one's state of mind at the end whether one's information is obtained formally or informally. At any rate, that is the information that I have.
A question was asked as to whether there was some traffic in licences. I can


answer that question in a second. It cannot be true, because these licences cannot be dealt with in that way. Licences are not sold. The Board of Trade issues a licence to the Importers' Association and also licences to individuals. The licences are not sold. The certificates received by members from their own association are transferred by sale or otherwise from one member to another, but the certificates cannot total more than the covering Board of Trade licence which has already been issued. I may perhaps add, for the benefit of the House generally, that since this duty was taken off there has been no abnormal demand for an increased issue of licences. There is therefore no foundation for any fear that there is going to be such an inrush of imports that there will be a glut. There is, on my information, and I have had it checked by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Scottish Office during the afternoon, no indication of a fall in price. I believe that the prices at present prevailing are remunerative to the growers; I believe that the removal of the duty is going to help the consumers; I believe that the supply of cheap foreign potatoes will be adequate; I believe that they will be sold at prices which the working classes can pay, and that the sale of these cheap potatoes will not affect the disposal of the main crop of British varieties.

Sir R. ROSS: My hon. Friend, of course, has given us a departmental answer which did not cover the whole ground, but there is one serious matter which I put to him. We understood that there was an undertaking that, if there was a shortage, Northern Ireland, which has always more than it can sell, would be called upon to make up the shortage. Was that undertaking given and, if so, was it honoured?

Dr. BURGIN: It was a slip on my part that I did not mention that. It is obviously a matter on which I should have to be informed. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to communicate with him?

GRAIN STORAGE.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. DONNER: I wish to raise the question of grain storage in relation to national defence for two reasons. Firstly, because in the Whit Paper on Defence there is no reference at all to the question

of the provision of food in this country or to grain storage and, whilst the majority of the House is only too anxious and willing to support the Government in any effort to repair the defences of the country, many of us are extremely anxious about this question of grain storage. My second reason for wishing to open a discussion on the subject is that the Prime Minister, in replying to a question from me on 31st March, said he would welcome a debate on the subject. I should like to offer a few observations, not because I think anything I can say on this matter will be of any particular interest to the House but in the hope of eliciting a constructive statement from the Government as to the investigations that are now being carried out, and also in the hope that we shall have some promise of action not too long delayed.

Dr. BURGIN: My hon. Friend is talking of grain storage. Grain is one of a variety of foodstuffs. Does he treat grain on some different footing from other essential foodstuffs, and does he treat essential foodstuffs on some different footing from raw material? I want to understand the width of what it is I am to reply to.

Mr. DONNER: My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) will deal with the production of foodstuffs. I thought of narrowing down my speech to the storage of grain, and particularly wheat, if only for the reason that 63 per cent. of our imports are cereals, and of this 63 per cent. two-thirds are wheat. Apart from the import of oil, iron ore and certain minerals, the nature of which it is not in the public interest to mention, wheat is all-important to us, and for this reason I had thought of limiting my speech to this narrow issue. I was somewhat surprised at the modesty of the hon. Gentleman's statement yesterday when he referred to the possibility of his being present to-day. I should like to express my lively satisfaction that the possibility should have materialised. At a time when preparations are being made to increase our military security it is surely common sense not to neglect reasonable precautions in regard to the most important element in the defence of the Realm, the provision of food.
There are two ways of dealing with this question. The first is the question


of home production and of increasing the fertility of the soil, and the second is the question of the storage of grain. I should like to reaffirm the truism that we cannot hurry nature and, while an industry can switch over its production in peace time to the manufacture of war materials in a short time, particularly if preliminary arrangements have been made, almost all crops take a year to grow and harvest and, if war were to break out in the late spring of any year, it would probably take about 18 months before any appreciable increase in our production would become apparent.
Therefore, if agriculture is to play its part in the defence of the country, the fertility of the soil must be increased during preceding years of peace, and that can be done only by carrying a high population of cattle. This touches the root of the matter. We must feed in time of war not only our people, but our livestock also. If we stored a sufficient quantity of wheat in this country in granaries or silos, we should have the offals also which we need for feeding our livestock. The President of the Board of Trade, in reply to a question put to him on 26th March, answered:
Granaries cannot be an effective security against the risk of war unless they are full."—OFFRIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1936; col. 1420, Vol. 310.]
That is obvious to everybody. Therefore, I would urge my hon. Friend to take steps to fill the granaries which we have at the present time. I am not asking him to spend enormous sums of money upon building granaries or silos, but to take steps to fill the granaries and silos that we have, with certain exceptions.

Dr. BURGIN: Why?

Mr. DONNER: If I may be allowed to continue my argument, I will wind up by giving the reason why this should be done. I am asking the Government to fill the granaries that we have, with certain exceptions. Those exceptions are the silos and granaries at our ports, which will provide obvious vulnerable targets of attack by bombing aeroplanes. It has been calculated that the wheat requirements of the country cost something like £40,000,000 a year, and that if a year's supply were stored, the cost of storage, calculated at 6 per cent., would

be £2,500,000. According to the Ministry of Agriculture report on the Marketing of Wheat in England and Wales, 1928, the storage capacity in this country is sufficient for very nearly a year's supply. I am not suggesting that we should store as great an amount as that, although that has been advocated by people outside this House, but it would be worth while to investigate whether it would not be in the interests of the country, in view of the uncertain international situation and the privations and anxieties which this country experienced in 1917, to consider the storage of six months' supply of wheat in the granaries and silos of this country. On the basis I have just given, the cost of the storage of six months supply is £1,250,000. It would give security to this country which a battleship costing £7,000,000 cannot alone give. I do not by that mean to suggest at all that battleships are not absolutely vital to the safety and security of this country—they are—but if we could store that amount of wheat for so small a sum, it would be very much worth while.
May I put five practical proposals before my hon. Friend for his consideration? They are probably familiar to the Government already, and, no doubt, familiar to many Members of this House. I would ask him to investigate them even if they are familiar to him. First of all, I believe that the vulnerability of our present granaries and silos at our ports could be lessened if steps were to be taken to encourage the millers to keep their granaries full. This could be done by a small bonus given to the millers, based upon the difference between keeping their granaries full and the average quantities they have kept in those granaries during the last two or three years. It is a fact that during 1935, 68½ per cent. of English wheat sold in this country was sold before February. Surely, farmers could be encouraged to hold off their wheat from the market. By a small bonus for every quarter of wheat could they not be encouraged to hold off their wheat from the market for each month of the cereal year until the next harvest?
There is no better way of storing English wheat, on account of the greater moisture content than in the stack. If that were done on any large scale it would


increase the margin of safety which is so badly needed at the present time, because an enemy could not possibly attack or destroy wheat stored on a large scale in stacks spread up and down the country. The suggestion has been made that we might refit and revive the country mills which were somewhat hastily destroyed during the popularity of rationalisation. If the matter were considered urgent as a result of investigations made by the Government, municipal authorities could be asked to build granaries of a size bearing relation to the population of their respective districts.
Lastly, there is the question of the storage of surplus Canadian wheat in this country. I put a question to my hon. Friend on this subject yesterday, and he said that he would make a note of it. I suggested that the Canadian Wheat Board might be approached with a view to the storage of some of their surplus wheat on this side of the Atlantic instead of on the other side of the Atlantic, and that the Government of the United Kingdom might pay for the small extra cost of storage. I have the figures given by the Canadian Minister of Trade and Commerce, from which it is clear that for the week ending the 6th March, 1936, there were just under 220,000,000 bushels of wheat stored on the Canadian side of the Atlantic. It would be a wise thing if we were to approach the Canadian Wheat Board and ask them to store some of that wheat in this country. These enormous surpluses of wheat at present in Canada are depressing prices and ruining the Canadian farmers. By having some of that wheat stored in this country not only should we remove the depressing and ruinous effect on prices in Canada and do the Canadian farmer a good turn, but we should be adding to the margin of safety in this country.
If it is said that the sort of action which I have suggested would increase the price of wheat, my reply is that it is strange doctrine that we should refuse to defend ourselves because we might temporarily increase the price of any particular commodity. If it is said that the cost of storage would be too great a burden on His Majesty's Government, surely with wheat at its present price, and if it is thought that the price of wheat might rise, some arrangement

might be made whereby the margin of increase might primarily be used to pay for the cost of the storage.
It is because I believe that this question is of some urgency and that there is anxiety in the country that I have raised it to-day. I have done so in the belief that in time of war we could still command the seas. If we lost that command in time of war then, obviously, we should be a beaten people and no amount of stores of grain, iron ore, oil or of anything else could possibly save us. What I have said is based on the assumption that we should still command the seas. Although the Government are daily doing all that they can to avert the danger and menace of war not only in this year of grace but in the future, surely it is statesmanship also to minimise the effects of war should war come upon us again. After all, we only wriggled through the last war.
My reason for putting these proposals to the Government is that we only wriggled through 1917 on account of the convoy system and hastily improvised home grown production. Submarines still exist, and it is probable that the post-war submarine will in another war again force us back to the convoy system. This time we shall have to consider the effect of bombing planes on convoys. I have never shared the view held by many people that a warship cannot defend itself against aerial attack, but I agree that aerial attack is much more likely to prove effective against merchant ships than against warships. No one so far has experienced air attacks on convoys. No one can accurately foretell the result. Therefore, it is conceivable, I will not put it any higher, that an unforeseen emergency might arise due to the unknown factor of aerial power. The lesson of history shows that there is always an interim period between the invention of a new form of offence and the invention of a defensive weapon to meet the new invention. Surely, as far as we are concerned, as far as this country is concerned, the whole lesson of English history is that of all the nations of the world we stand to suffer most during that interim period, we are more vulnerable than any other nation.
If that is the case it would be statesmanship to provide an extra margin of safety in the event of an unforeseen emer-


gency or contingency arising, however temporary it might be. If we had for example a six months' supply of wheat stored in this country it would free the mercantile marine, if only temporarily, for the transport of oil, munitions and troops, and, what is more, it would free cruisers for other purposes for which they might be required. In that connection I would remind the House that we have only 50 cruisers at the present time. In time of war 18 or 20 would be required to be with the battle fleet, and at any single time 10 may be taken as being in harbour refuelling, taking in stores, or undergoing repairs, and, therefore, of our 50 cruisers only 20, some of them over age, would be available to defend the daily imports coming into these islands of 50,000 tons of foodstuffs and 110,000 tons of merchandise, and to protect the convoys over 85,000 miles of trade routes. Therefore, I submit that the Admiralty would be relieved of a serious strain if they knew that whatever happened we had wheat stored in this country, capable of lasting six months without imports, and they would be free to concentrate on meeting a temporary emergency or whatever dangers might beset us.
I would urge on the Government with all respect that they should consider one last suggestion. I believe that there is a widespread feeling of anxiety in regard to this matter. Would it not be possible for one Member of the Government to be responsible to this House on the question of grain storage. I know that the Committee of Imperial Defence is responsible. The matter is in capable hands, and I know that a number of committees have been looking into the matter. It is a question which was raised as far back as 1904, and I believe there was a Royal Commission on the subject in 1905. Conservative Members of Parliament have been raising the question on and off ever since then, but with the memories, anxieties and privations of 1917 still fresh in our minds, surely it would be wise to go into the matter again, not from the point of view of postponing any further investigation or examination but from the point of view of really tackling it once and for all.
Surely, if we adopt that point of view, would it not be well to have one Member of the Government responsible to the House of Commons,

so that those of us who are interested in this question and would like to see the matter dealt with can come to the House and put questions to him, and make sure that this matter will really be dealt with in the near future?

ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

3.36 p.m.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I understand that an hon. Member on the Opposition side of the House intends to raise the question of our policy at Geneva with regard to Abyssinia, and if that be the case, I would like to make one or two observations in that connection which are germane to the topic raised by my hon. Friend who has just resumed his seat, because it is of vital importance to relate our foreign policy to our capacity for translating it into effective action. In other words, our foreign policy must depend upon our general defensive organisation, and for my part I am satisfied that, whatever else may be said, we have not at the present moment defences in any field sufficient to enable us to carry out the foreign policy we are at present attempting to follow.
I would like to say to my Noble Friend who I believe is to reply to this Debate, that I was one of those who very strongly opposed the Hoare-Laval proposals concerning Abyssinia. I did so because I thought we were going back on everything we had been saying for six months and because at that time I thought there was still a chance of achieving unanimity among the members of the Council of the League of Nations and of achieving not unilateral action, but effective combined action against Italy. That chance appears to have gone altogether at the present time, and if it has gone—and I think the House will demand some very definite reassurances from my Noble Friend before they are convinced that it has not gone—I think in the interests of everybody, but perhaps more particularly in the interests of the unfortunate Abyssinians, it would be better to face the fact that we have failed this time. We are not, and never have been, prepared to fight Italy alone on behalf of the Abyssinians.
I address my observations particularly to hon. Members of I he Liberal party and the Labour party, who continue to press for what they call strong action and who say that they are prepared to face


the consequences, which may be war. I do not believe the country at the moment is prepared to fight Italy alone on behalf of Abyssinia. I do not believe we can get the country to do that, and if we are not prepared to do it, and if it be true, as I think it appears to be true, that the chance of unanimity and effective action at Geneva has gone, it would only be kind to the Abyssinians if we faced that fact, instead of continuing to lead them—one could hardly call it up the garden path at the present moment—through this hell in the absolutely vain hope that somehow, in some way, at some time effective assistance will be given to them by Geneva. I do not believe that will come.
In the existing circumstances, I cannot understand what was the point in the speech made at Geneva yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I cannot see that his observations at this particular juncture can have any other effect than that of prolonging this ghastly war, and still worse the effect of severing us from France at a moment of very grave international crisis in Europe. We live in a dynamic and even a violent period in the world's history, and it demands swift and decisive action in foreign policy on our part. It may demand violent changes in foreign policy if we are to save the peace of the world and save civilisation. The main objective that remains open to us at present seems to be one and one only—stop the slaughter as quickly as possible and at any cost.
I believe that the mass of British public opinion sees that the attempt at collective security and the attempt to translate that into collective action at Geneva has failed, and if the Government are prepared to face up to that the mass of public opinion would support such action on the part of the British Government. Can we stop the slaughter, can we stop this war in Abyssinia at the present moment by going on trying to "hot up" the Council of the League of Nations to action which in our heart of hearts we know they are not going to take and we know that France is not going to take? They are not going to impose oil sanctions. Is it worth while going on trying, in the present position between France and ourselves? I do not think we have armed forces enough to enable us to do it.

Mr. FOOT: May I ask my hon. Friend, does he not realise that if France were to refuse to back us up in this matter in any proposal we make there will be a far larger rift between France and public opinion in this country than there is at present?

Mr. BOOTHBY: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he thinks that is a desirable thing? I think it would be the most calamitous and the most catastrophic event that could happen. We cannot possibly afford to have a real rift between France and ourselves now or in the future. I believe the peace of the world and the state of civilisation ultimately depends on co-operation between France and ourselves. I fully agree that in seine measure at any rate the French have let us down in this matter. We supported effective action against Italy. We were prepared, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said, to go the whole way, and France, at the time when action might have been effective, refused to go with us. Let us face up to it, that is all. She did refuse to go with us when effective action could have been taken. Now I believe it is too late to take effective action.
Therefore, I think the kindest thing to everybody, and the kindest thing above all to the Abyssinians, would be to face up to it and say that this time at any rate economic sanctions have failed. The important thing now is to bring the war to a close at any cost because no one is going to fight for Abyssinia. I believe that the best thing is to face up to the realities of the position. My hon. Friend says it is too late. I can only say I do not agree. Nothing is ever too late. There is such a thing as learning by experience, however bitter that experience may be. If the Government are prepared to face up to the position and explain the facts clearly they will find a surprising amount of support even amongst those who are most strongly attached to sanctions. Now may I just say a word or two upon the question raised by my hon. Friend in his most interesting speech.

Mr. SHORT: I submit that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) is now taking up the subject which has already, been raised by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Donner). Is he entitled to introduce that subject again and


thus to supersede my hon. Friend behind me who wishes to raise another matter?

Mr. BOOTHBY: That is a point of Order. I respectfully submit that the question of the general defence of the country is closely bound up with the question of foreign policy and that on a Motion for the Adjournment it is proper to deal with the two together. I understood that it was the intention to have a general discussion of the whole subject of foreign policy and defence but if any of my hon. Friends above the Gangway feel that I have treated them badly by going on to deal with this subject I apologise. I understand, however, that they are not aggrieved and I would point out that there is plenty of time left for an effective and interesting Debate on this vital subject. I do not think that the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short) had any justification for intervening. I disagree with his view and I am not prepared to be called to order by him.
On the general question of defence I would emphasise and underline the concluding passage in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke as to the vital necessity of providing adequate cruisers for the defence of the trade routes. I think he made a very good point, that when allowance is made for the number of cruisers working in connection with the battle fleet and those which are refitting, refuelling and so forth, we have only about 20 available for the defence of our trade routes and some of those are over-age. That is a most dangerous aspect of this question of food supplies in time of war. What nearly beat us in the last war was starvation, which was far more dangerous to us than any military effort of the enemy and the necessity of keeping our trade routes open at almost any cost is of paramount importance.
There is one other aspect of this question which is also of great importance, and that is the question of production in this country. We subsidise wheat and sugar beet, but they are more or less artificial products in this country and cannot be produced here nearly as cheaply as they can be produced overseas. There are, however, three classes of produce, namely, oats, potatoes and barley, all of which are indigenous to this country and in regard to which, with a

little effort by the Government, we could make ourselves self-supporting. The repercussions of the present policy of subsidising wheat nad sugar beet at the expense of the oats and barley growers is very serious indeed on beef production. The price of oats and barley is so low that it is becoming financially impossible for farmers the North-East of Scotland, who produce some of the best beef in the world, to continue breeding first-grade cattle. Not only the standard but the size of the herds is being reduced, and the grade is being lowered, because the prices which the farmer receives for his arable crops are unremunerative.
I re-echo the wish of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Boss) for the attendance on this occasion of a representative of the Department of Agriculture. This question raises large issues of policy, and I hope that my hon. Friend opposite will draw the attention both of the President of the Board of Trade and of the Minister of Agriculture to the fact that some of us have been worried by the lack of machinery for dealing with the whole question of food production in this country. We have put a lot of questions recently to the Prime Minister, and we have received very unsatisfactory replies. He has told us that there is no committee set up, that there is no Minister primarily responsible for the survey of agricultural production in Great Britain as a whole and for the necessary steps to be taken to coordinate agriculture as between Scotland and England, and also to survey the whole field where it comes to apportioning subsidies. There are many of us who feel that this lack of central control over agricultural production in this country as a whole is to some extent the cause of the present confusion in policy, because I do not think that anyone, on a long view, would agree that it is either right or fair or wise, in the interests of the country as a whole, to select almost at random two commodities like wheat and beet, of which there is incidentally a world glut, and subsidise them at the expense of every other farmer in Great Britain who is unable, through no fault of his own, to grow those two particular commodities.
I submit, with all the emphasis that I can, that this question should be studied from the point of view not only of the


country as a whole, but also of national defence, from the point of view of the commodities of which, if the worst came to the worst and our shipping were seriously interfered with, we should stand in most need. I am not at all sure it would not be found, if the situation ever became desperate, as I pray that it may never become, that oats and potatoes may ultimately be more valuable than beet sugar and wheat. At any rate, I think it is a subject which the Government ought very carefully to study, and let us know what their long-term agricultural policy is, because we do not know at the present time. We do not know what they are going to do about subsidies, or about oats, or about barley, or about Ottawa, or about the Argentine Agreement. We do not know what their policy is with regard to nutrition. We only know that it has been abundantly proved recently by Sir John Orr and other authorities that, in order to attain a satisfactory level of nutrition in this country, apart altogether from any question of war or defence, we ought almost to double our production of certain classes of agricultural produce.
That we know, but how the Government propose to do it we do not know, and I submit that during the Recess the Government might devote their activities, not to individual details, on which undoubtedly the administration is excellent, but to the continuation of a general long-term agricultural policy for this country, designed not only in the interests of defence, but also in the interests of the health of our own people, because there is an impression prevailing, I think on all sides of the House, that there is not an adequate grip, that there is no long-term theme with regard to agricultural policy at the present time, and I believe that from every point of view, whether of social affairs or of defence, it is one of the most important questions and issues which confront us to-day.

3.53 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: It is only with the leave of the House that I can intervene again to make an answer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Donner), who was kind enough to give me notice of the subject he wished to raise. I am afraid that with the aspect of the matter which raises questions of defence it is not

within my province to deal, but on the other aspects it is, I agree, a problem of staggering magnitude. The hon. Member has called attention to a number of points. He has reduced the demand, which was at one time current, for 12 months' stocks to be held in this country, to six months' stocks. We are now perhaps rather nearer in our ideas, but in addition to the stocks in public granaries, the stocks of wheat held in millers' private silos, of flour in millers' warehouses, stocks of imported flour and flour in bakers' warehouses should be considered. There are also the stocks of home-grown wheat, which, of course, depend on the time of year. All these, taken together, would amount at the present time, according to the best trade information which I have, to something like three months' supplies under normal conditions. So that when we find the difference between us is the question whether one should guard against temporary interruption by having a sufficiency, whether that be three months or six months, it is a matter that could rightly be discussed.
If the hon. Member will allow me, I should like to look into the suggestions that he has been good enough to put forward in his constructive speech, and perhaps communicate with him. In so far as his speech dealt with matters of defence, of course they must be dealt with by others and on another occasion. I should like him and other hon. Members who think, like him, that the question of the storage of food to guard against emergencies is a matter of importance, to consider the enormous implications of a problem of rendering us self-sufficient with regard to homegrown foodstuffs so as to make us capable of standing a siege. If the hon. Member means temporary interruption, I can understand much of his argument, but standing a siege is something bigger than any of us need contemplate. If he will allow me to deal with his speech in the way I have suggested, it will perhaps be the best method of handling it.

Mr. DONNER: I thank my hon. Friend. Of course, I only envisaged a temporary interruption.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I do not propose to follow the speech of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr.


Boothby) except to express my disagreement with his suggestion that we should endeavour to obtain peace between Abyssinia and Italy by stopping the slaughter at any price. I agree with him if the price, as far as it is possible to pay compensation, is to be paid to Abyssinia. I think there are very few Members who would agree that the price should be paid to Italy. Italy has broken every pledge that she has made. She solemnly undertook under the Covenant of the League of Nations to respect and preserve the political independence and territorial integrity of every other country belonging to the League, and there is no reason, because Italy has broken her solemn pledges, that this country and the other Members of the League should break their pledges.
I gave notice to the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that I desired to raise one or two aspects of that war. I do not think I am guilty of exaggeration when I say that the methods that are being adopted by Italy in the conduct of the war against Abyssinia are causing the most profound concern to the people of this country. We were told by the Foreign Secretary that he had received a report that aeroplanes had flown over an open town—or a town which is alleged by the Abyssinians to be open—and that 300 bombs fell on the town of Harar. Some of them fell on the Swedish Mission, 50 on the Egyptian Red Cross, 14 on the Catholic Mission, four on the French hospital, four on the Harar Red Cross, and others on various churches in the vicinity.
This question concerns every nation, because every nation has subscribed to The Hague Convention of 1907. Under that Convention the bombing of towns, places of religion, hospitals and other charitable institutions was prohibited. This country as well as other countries, including Italy, signed that Convention. Therefore, it is of concern to this country when Italy acts in such a manner as to outrage the conceptions that most decent people have with regard to the way in which she should carry on war. Moreover, it is another example of a definite breach of an undertaking freely entered into by Italy.
Then there is the question of the use of gas. In 1925 the Geneva Gas Protocol was signed, its main provision being that

asphyxiating and poisonous gases should not be used by any country which signed the Protocol. Both Italy and Abyssinia have signed it. Moreover, it is interesting to note that during the Disarmament Conference the question of the use of poisonous gases arose once again, and hon. Members who care to inquire further into the subject will find that Italy raised two points in the discussions which took place at the end of 1932 and in the early part of 1933 on the Draft Convention for the Prohibition of Poisonous Gases in War. They said, first, that the sanctions which were to be enforced under the Convention, if and when it came into force, were not strong enough and ought to be made more effective. Secondly, the Convention provided that there should be regional applications of sanctions. "No," said Italy, "it is no use making the application of sanctions a regional matter, it must be made the responsibility of all the nations associated with the League of Nations." The Government and the Council of the League of Nations should not, therefore, have any great difficulty in making up their minds that Italy, through her delegations at Geneva, has in the past taken a very strong attitude with regard to the application of sanctions.
When I raised this matter in the House two or three weeks ago the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs suggested that I was in too much of a hurry in referring to Article 16 of the Covenant, which deals with the imposition of sanctions, because in 1921 a series of resolutions had been passed one of which provided that sanctions should be applied, as he called it, progressively. Progressively means stage by stage. I should not object to that interpretation, and I am not differing with the Noble Lord on a question of interpretation, but on the question of application. There has been no application of sanctions stage by stage. That is just the trouble. Hostilities began in the first week of October in last year. In the week commencing 11th October four sanctions were imposed by the Co-ordinating Committee: The withholding of credit; the stoppage of imports from Italy into League countries; the prohibition of the supply of munitions of war to Italy; and placing an embargo on a number of commodities required for war purposes.
Those sanctions were imposed in the second week in October. Six months have elapsed, and no further sanctions have been imposed against Italy. In December a committee was appointed to consider the application of an oil embargo. Reporting in February, the committee said that, in their opinion, Italy had stocks of oil amounting to about 800,000 tons, sufficient to last for two-and-a-half or three months. In January, Italy increased those stocks of oil by an amount exceeding 50,000 tons, and she has no doubt been doing that each month since January, so that I should imagine that at present Italy would have not less than 1,000,000 tons of oil in reserve. The rains are expected to commence in May, and for several months there will be very little in the way of military operations. Italy will be conserving or reducing her consumption of oil, and if an oil embargo were imposed next week it is doubtful whether it would become effective before October or November. All this could have been avoided if the Council of the League had taken their courage in both hands and imposed an embargo at once not only upon oil but upon coal, iron and steel and all the other commodities which are required by Italy for war purposes.
Why have the Council of the League not withdrawn the heads of missions? The Noble Lord has referred to the resolution of 1921, and he knows that the suggestion was included in that resolution that the first thing to do was to withdraw the heads of missions, but not to withdraw the whole personnel of the Embassies. Why have the Ambassadors of the League countries not been withdrawn from Rome?

Mr. BOOTHBY: Might I ask one question, because it is very important? Suppose that France refuses, as she has refused, either to withdraw her Ambassador or to impose an oil embargo, would the hon. Member be prepared to recommend that this country should take unilateral action involving a possible risk of war?

Mr. HENDERSON: If my hon. Friend's postulate were correct, I would be prepared to give my answer, but it is not correct. I can only speak of matters within my own knowledge, and the French Government have never been

requested, so far as I know, to withdraw their Ambassador from Rome. The question of the withdrawal of heads of missions has never, as far as I know, been considered by the Co-ordinating Committee, and no decision has been taken by that Committee to prevent intercourse between the nationals of Italy and the nationals of League nations. That is another Sanction contained in Article 16.
So far as the hon. Member's question is concerned, I would reply that in the event of France and other countries refusing to carry out their obligations under the Covenant, my hon. Friend would be entitled to say that the League of Nations had broken down and he and his friends could withdraw into their policy of isolation, if that be their policy. That position has never arisen, because 46 nations have given an undertaking, under Article 16, to come to the assistance of any country against whom special measures might be directed by the aggressor country, Italy. The Noble Lord knows that proposals for mutual support in the application of sanctions have been accepted outright by 46 governments. If that be so, why should this Government or any other Government be afraid of finding themselves having to hold the baby on behalf of the League of Nations?
It is far better to take the straight course, with all its risks. The Noble Lord knows as well as I do that Italy is not in a position to overcome the resistance of 46 nations, unless we are to assume that all these other nations are composed of hypocrites, that they are nations who are prepared to give an undertaking to-day and break it to-morrow, that they are all the same as Italy. If that were the position I could understand it, but to think that it is shows a complete lack of knowledge of the psychology of the smaller nations, and even of nations like Russia, and, with great respect to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, even of France. There may have been a reluctance on the part of a particular French premier. We do not know the nature of the conversations which took place in January of last year between M. Laval and Signor Mussolini, but I have had letters even from Italy in which I am told that it is commonly said in that country that France gave Italy a


free hand as a result of those conversations. Whether that be so or not I do not know, but I agree that there seems to have been a reluctance on the part of the late French Government to accept its responsibilities. There is no reason for saying that that is the position with the present French Government, and I would ask the Noble Lord, as far as he is able to influence the policy of his Government, not to follow the example of Italy.
Whatever we may think about the League of Nations, we are pledged with 50 other nations to respect and preserve—the word used in Article 11 is, as the Noble Lord knows, "preserve" and there can be no dispute between us as to what preserve "means—we are pledged with 50 other nations to preserve the territorial integrity of Abyssinia. As far as oil sanctions are concerned, those who say that sanctions mean war must face up to the alternative. Either Italy is to be allowed to be supplied with all these war materials, which is not going to help the cause of peace, or sanctions are going to be imposed, with all the risks of doing so, which will make it more difficult for Italy to carry on this war. I, for one, believe that a victory for Italy will mean a defeat of the League, and not only a defeat of the League, but a defeat of the conceptions on which the League is based—human co-operation, human decency and human welfare. There is no escaping from the position that, if Italy is able to annex the whole or the greater part of Abyssinia as the result of this war, the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Covenants contained in the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact are not worth the paper on which they are printed so far as small countries are concerned. Are we to understand that the League only exists to safeguard the security of the more powerful nations, or is it to exist to safeguard the security of all nations, great or small?
This is the testing time, and at the present moment, as the "Times" said in a leading article the other day, the only person who comes out of the present crisis well is the Emperor of Abyssinia. He may be uncivilised, he may be a wild, untutored savage, but at any rate he is prepared to adhere to the solemn obligations into which his country entered at Geneva. On the other hand, we have Signor Mussolini, a dictator with no one

to say him nay, repudiating all his obligations, breaking all his pledges, returning to the law of the jungle, the law that might is right, that force shall prevail against the rule of law. I believe that the world has come to a crisis. It is not a question of being bloodthirsty, but a question of standing or falling by the Covenant of the League of Nations. There is nothing wrong with the Covenant. It is based on a conception of law and justice against which no Member of the House can cavil. If it means anything we must see that Abyssinia is not dismembered and its men, women and children outraged and mutilated by a bullying aggressor. I hope the Noble Lord will give us an assurance that the Government will stand firm to its responsibilities and, if necessary, give a lead at Geneva in the direction of preventing Italy from destroying an independent country.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: This subject is not raised for the purpose of making any difficulties or causing any embarrassment to the Government. Judging by this morning's newspapers, it appears that the Foreign Secretary is doing his best at Geneva to raise some of the points that have been raised in my hon. Friend's speech. It would be a bad service to the right hon. Gentleman, who appears to be raising this question of restraining Italy from carrying on the use of poison gas and, one assumes, raising the question of extending the sphere of sanctions and if he is unable to get satisfaction, to stab him in the back by any speech here which would make it difficult for him. I generally listen with great interest to the speeches of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) but to-day he has disappointed us very deeply. His speech will not be of any assistance to the Foreign Secretary. On the contrary, I fear it is a stab in the back for him if he is, as I think, fighting for the right thing at Geneva. Public opinion is now getting ripe for taking action in this matter. The use of poison gas is appealing to the humanitarian side of our people, besides being a breach of the Geneva Protocol of 1925. The question is whether we can do anything effective to stop it. The most effective thing, surely, is the application of sanctions, progressive in such a way as now to include articles which will be effective in


putting a stop to these atrocities and preventing Italy getting any further oil for the use of her aeroplanes.
It is, of course, reasonable for the Government to consider whether it is possible effectively to apply them, and I am going to prove that it is possible or that, if it is difficult, it is entirely because of the hesitations and everlastng delays and obstructions which have gone on and for which the Government cannot escape some share of blame. Russia and Rumania, which are big oil producers, have declared their readiness to join in oil sanctions if other nations will do the same. I know that the attitude of the United States may be brought up. What are the facts? A few months ago there was before Congress a neutrality Bill to replace the existing law passed by Congress some years ago. That neutrality law did give certain powers to the President, or at least it did not take away from him certain powers which he might use to make it difficult for the oil exporters in the United States to send oil to Italy. It is a well known fact that the United States Government have control, by means of shipping subsidies, over the oil fleet of the United States. That power is not taken away from the President even under the new neutrality law. By this constant delay and uncertainty and the feeling that we were not serious about this matter, and particularly by the situation created by the Hoare-Laval agreement, the opinion of the United States has been seriously undermined. The people in the United States are a sentimental people, although they have old institutions and traditions which have led them in the past to demand the right to trade with belligerent States, and which brought them into the War in 1917. Even in spite of that, it is always possible to appeal to public opinion in the United States. If it had been shown that we were in earnest, we should have had by this time the United States standing side by side with the League of Nations in taking steps to prevent oil going to Italy. It is just that, shall I say, cowardice—for which I do not say that we alone are responsible but we at least have a share of the blame—which has failed to mobilise public opinion in the United States on the side of oil sanctions.
Of course, we have the opinion of France to consider. I understand that she

only supplies to Italy just about that amount of oil to keep the taxi-cabs going in Rome for a few days. In any case, her position is not likely to be serious from a technical point of view, serious though it is from the diplomatic and political point of view. But even here, are we to believe that public opinion in France cannot also be influenced and appealed to provided we show that we are in earnest? It is just that kind of speech delivered by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen which makes it possible for there to be opposition in France and a feeling to exist that we are not in earnest. The anti-League interests in this country and the Press campaign which has been carried on for months against the League, headed by Mr. Garvin in the "Observer" and supported by the isolationists, are doing everything they can to undermine the morale and the authority of the League. It is they who assist anti-League interests and Fascist interests in France. I maintain, therefore, that it is possible for us, if we show that we are in earnest, to take steps in this direction.
There is a further point, and that is that even now if we could get a united front and act in this direction all might be well. We are told that sanctions mean war. If that be true, why is it that we have now the Fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean, round about the Suez Canal? This House not long ago voted over £7,000,000 for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the Navy in connection with those Fleet movements in the Eastern Mediterranean. My hon. Friends and I on these benches did not vote against that. We moved a reasoned Amendment, and voted for it, calling attention to the foreign policy of the Government which has brought about the situation that made this expenditure necessary, meaning thereby that if we had acted earlier and Italy had been properly held at the beginning, this expenditure would not have been necessary. That does not mean that we were not willing to do whatever might be necessary to support oil sanctions if a dictator chose to run mad and attack us.
I have referred to our failures in the past, but let us not say that all is lost and throw up our hands. Let us not say that the dictator who has torn up the Covenant of the League and is attacking another member shall get away with the


spoils and the booty. Let us say that we are ready to support the League and the Covenant, even to the necessity of defending it against any possible aggressor. For these reasons, I have the greatest pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. Henderson) in raising the question of restraining Italy in the use of these terrible weapons of war.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. EMMOTT: It is not very long ago since the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) made a very interesting speech on the subject of Germany, with almost every word of which I found myself in complete agreement. To-day he has addressed to the House an argument with which I find myself in complete disagreement. It is impossible to go into the general argument on this occasion, but the cases of Germany and Italy are quite distinct from each other. In the case of Germany we are concerned with a breach of the Locarno Treaty, but in the case of Italy we are concerned with a breach of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The two Treaties give rise to very different obligations and general considerations, and it seems to me that when we are dealing with a breach of the Covenant of the League we have to keep our feet planted very firmly on the ground and address ourselves always to the question, what is and what is not possible. It appears to me that the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) and the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean have ignored that fundamental and practical question: What is and what is not possible?

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: How can you find out how it is possible to assist the Abyssinians if you do not inquire?

Mr. EMMOTT: During the whole course of the discussions at Geneva last year the British Government were engaged in inquiring what was possible in this respect; and when the hon. Member above the Gangway accuses the Government of cowardice, well, that, in the first place, is a matter of opinion and, in the second place, the hurling of this type of epithet across the Floor of the House is not argument, and does not conduce to a clarification of the subject. With much that was said by

the hon. Member for Kingswinford the whole House is in agreement. No one can defend some of the practices which have been employed by the Italian forces in the conduct of the Abyssinian war, and no one can but deplore the whole curse of that frightful conflict. But this, after all, is a practical question and has to be considered on practical grounds. The hon. Member for Kingswinford brought it as a charge against the Government that they had been backward in attempting to persuade the League to fufil in the letter the obligations of Article 16 of the Covenant, and he referred specifically to the provision which refers to the prevention of intercourse between the citizens of the Covenant breaking State and citizens of other States. This bears directly upon the point I wish to make. It is, in fact, impossible in the circumstances of to-day for all the provisions of Article 16 of the Covenant to be executed. I have not the Covenant before me, but, speaking from memory, I think it is true that if the provisions of Article 16 were to be strictly executed, His Majesty's Government are here and now under the obligation not only to prevent intercourse between the citizens of Italy and our own citizens, and those of other States members of the League, but also to prevent intercourse between Italian citizens and the citizens of the United States of America. Plainly the thing is impossible. Can anyone seriously suggest that such a course is at this moment possible or should seriously be urged on His Majesty's Government as a practical measure?

Mr. HENDERSON: I did not advocate that we should cease intercourse between the citizens of the United States and Italy. What I suggested was that member States of the League of Nations are under an obligation under Article 16 to prevent intercourse between their nationals and Italians. The question of the United States is a separate and additional obligation imposed on member States to prevent intercourse between their nationals and an aggressor State.

Mr. EMMOTT: I an much obliged to the hon. Member for his intervention, but I understood that his general argument constituted a charge against the Government of backwardness, indeed of cowardliness, because of their failure to induce other members of the League of


Nations to do everything that is incumbent upon them under the provisions of the Covenant. On the contrary, I join issue with him, and I join issue, too, with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), with whose general conclusions I agree, but do not agree with some of the stages by which he reached those conclusions. He appeared to argue that in the earlier stages we might have taken with other members of the League action that would have been effective. I would ask him, what action could we have taken at an earlier stage that would have been effective On the contrary, I submit that from the beginning we have done all that we could, without producing results which would have defeated the very objects of the League of Nations and without producing results which the British people would not have tolerated.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I think that if in the early stages, six months ago, we had instituted an embargo on oil and on all raw materials and withdrawn Ambassadors, it would have been effective.

Mr. EMMOTT: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his intervention, which makes his argument clear. I will come then immediately to the particular point with which I wish to deal. Much has been said in the Debates which have taken place in this House recently on the matter of an oil embargo. It appears to me astonishing and fantastic that this subject should have been discussed in the manner in which it has been without, with the exception of the speech just made by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, an adequate appreciation of the position of the United States of America, though the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean himself has, I believe, wholly misrepresented, no doubt innocently, that position to the House. What is the value of urging His Majesty's Government to insist on the imposition of an embargo on the export of oil to Italy if, in fact, that embargo must be ineffective? It is my contention that in present circumstances an embargo on the export of oil to Italy must be ineffective on account of the situation of the United States. What is that situation? I must deal with it generally, because when I came to the House to-day I did not know this question would be raised and I did not furnish myself with the authority with which I should otherwise have provided myself.
At the beginning of this year a Bill was presented to Congress by the Administration and there was another Bill brought before Congress at the instance, if my memory is correct, of Senators Nye and Clark. I think that both those Bills, and certainly that of the Administration, contained provisions that would have conferred upon the Executive power to limit the export of oil to Italy and Italian dependencies below a certain limit. In passing, I would point out that the report of the Experts' Committee has now made it plain that an embargo on the export of oil to Italy and Italian dependencies must be ineffective unless there is a limitation of the export of oil from America. The Bill presented to the American Congress by the Administration contained the provisions to which I have referred, but what happened? Interests likely to be affected by these provisions got together and offered the most determined resistance to them. First, there was an amendment which limited the conditions within which an embargo upon export could be operated, the amendment confining the power of embargo within limits far narrower than were originally suggested by the Executive. But the matter went much further, and in the end the result of the discussions and lobbying and so on that took place, was that the Bill was not proceeded with. The present position is that the neutrality legislation which was in operation during the last part of last year has been prolonged for a year, and that under that legislation, which now governs the whole position, so far as the United States is concerned, there is no power whatever in the American Executive to limit the export of oil below a certain level.

Mr. PRICE: May I ask whether it is not the case that the Executive by controlling subsidies to United States shipping can thereby indirectly restrict the import of oil?

Mr. EMMOTT: If there is that power it is an indirect power, and probably would be in fact ineffective. Discussion which has ranged round the matter in the United States has concerned itself with the particular legislative proposals to which I have referred, and the position is as I have stated it, that under the neutrality legislation which has been prolonged for a year the. Executive has no power to impose a limitation upon


the export of oil. In those circumstances I suggest that it is nothing short of fantastic to urge upon the Government a course which must in practice be ineffective.

4.42 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Cranborne): During the last few weeks we have had a considerable number—an unusual number—of debates on foreign affairs and particularly debates dealing with the Italo-Abyssinian dispute. I do not think any of us can complain of that, because we all know with what intense anxiety not only everybody in the House but everybody in the country is looking at that dispute. I think the reason is that everyone in this country at the present time realises that that dispute has a very direct bearing not merely on Abyssinia herself, but upon the whole course of collective security. In the speech which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made in this House on Monday he indicated quite clearly, I think, what must be the immediate procedure with regard to this dispute. He said that His Majesty's Government had pressed that there should be a very early meeting of the Committee of Thirteen and that the purpose of that meeting would be to consider the replies received from Italy and Abyssinia to questions which have been addressed to them by the Chairman of the Committee. He went on to say—I will give his exact words:
There must be real conciliation, that is to say conciliation which results in a given period in a cessation of hostilities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1936; col. 2514, Vol. 310.]
He added that if that did not result, then the Committee of Eighteen would have to be called together again to consider what further measures should be taken. I have been asked this afternoon by various speakers to indicate the further trend of events. As hon. Members know, the Committee of Thirteen met yesterday and they have not yet finished their deliberations. In those circumstances it is quite impossible for me to explain to the House this afternoon what action has been taken, but I can say that my right hon. Friend at Geneva has pressed very strongly the policy he adumbrated in the House on

Monday that there should be a short time limit for conciliation, and if no results were obtained it would be a question of calling together the Committee of Eighteen. [Laughter.] It is all very well for the hon. Member in that corner to laugh, but if he considers that the Committee of Eighteen has achieved no results at all, that is not in the least true, as I hope to show later.

Mr. DENVILLE: That is not quite the reason why I laughed. I laughed at the idea of this going from one committee to another and then coming back from that committee to still another committee; and we shall probably be in the some position six months hence as we are in to-day.

Viscount CRANBORNE: In this House we have a good deal to do with corn, mittees, and I do not think hon. Members would agree with the proposition that committees do not produce any results. These committees have already produced results, and will produce more results, and Members of this House should be the first to realise that committees are an essential part of the organisation both of this House and of the League of Nations.
There is, however, another issue which has come before us in the last few weeks with regard to this unhappy dispute. That is an issue which has already been mentioned in this Debate. There are, as hon. Members know, and there have been lately, persistent and we fear well-founded reports that the Italian military authorities have made use of poison gas in their campaigns. Of course, it will be necessary in any examination which is being made to verify that fact carefully, because that is too grave a charge to be made against any nation unless you are absolutely sure. But I see no reason why any such examination should need long inquiry. It should be possible to conclude it in a few days. I believe that is also the view of His Majesty's Government and that, I hope and think, will be the course of action. If it turns out as a result of such inquiry that gas has been used, then I suggest that that is an issue of the very first importance and an issue which affects not merely Abyssinia but indeed the whole future of civilisation. As the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) has already said, in


1925 a number of nations negotiated what is known as the Gas Protocol at Geneva and I would like to quote, as the hon. Member did not do so, a few relevant words from that Protocol. It states:
Whereas the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world…To the end that this prohibition shall be universally accepted as a part of International Law, binding alike the conscience and the practice of nations, the signatories declare that the High Contracting Parties, so far as they are not already Parties to Treaties prohibiting such use, accept this prohibition, agree to extend this prohibition to bacteriological methods of warfare and agree to be bound as between themselves according to the terms of this declaration.

Mr. AMMON: Supposing it is proved that they have used it, what then?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I will come to that point. That is exactly the point which arises at the present moment. I have said that it raises an issue of the first importance. The House knows that that Protocol which I have quoted is unqualified. It is a definite declaration with no qualification whatever. It was signed and ratified by the Italian Government, and if it turns out as a result of examination that they have used this gas, then it is clear that there has been a breach of a solemn undertaking, not only against the Abyssinian Government but against all the other signatories to the Protocol. We have heard a great deal in this war of atrocities of various descriptions. We have heard that the Italians have thrown bombs on unfortified towns and even on the Red Cross. We have heard that the Abyssinians have mutilated numbers of prisoners. All these charges must undoubtedly be investigated in due time, and I would say to the hon. Member opposite, who intervened just now, that the question of the Abyssinian violations has already been referred by the Secretary-General of the League to the International Red Cross for inquiry. I would like him to feel that the League is acting in this matter in an entirely unbiased manner.
But in one respect I think that this question of gas is different from others, because this is a definite breach of a Protocol which was signed, as I understand, by Signor Mussolini's own Government, and it must be a matter of con-

cern, not only to the Abyssinians, who are suffering most from it, but to all the signatories of the document. What, after all, would be the use of any treaties, of any protocols, of any international documents of any kind, if they could be violated entirely with impunity at the convenience of any nation?

Mr. BOOTHBY: Do the Government really think it is any use laying down rules for the conduct of war, as if it were a game of football? War is a funny business, and if you start laying down rules for its conduct, surely you may make it more rather than less likely to occur.

Viscount CRANBORNE: I am afraid that I do not at all agree with my hon. Friend. I regard this question of gas as one of the utmost importance. He may be right, and it may be impossible, but if we cannot abolish the use of gas in warfare, it seems to me that we are very nearly at the end of our civilisation. I think we ought to take whatever measures it is possible for us to take to try and avoid that happening. After all, where are you going to stop? Are all nations to be allowed to abuse all the inventions of science and other new discoveries? If that is the case, it seems to me that there is the most terrible Nemesis awaiting our civilisation, and not only so, but at no late date—very soon—if this case is allowed to go by default. If it is condoned, if it is excused, it seems to me that the difficulties of the future will be immensely increased.
The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) referred to what the Foreign Secretary said at Geneva. He did not quote his words, but I took him to refer to his remarks on this question. I cannot agree, and I do not believe the great majority of the House will agree, with the hon. Member. Here is an issue of the utmost urgency, and it is really a case where our civilisation is in jeopardy. Was my right hon. Friend to allow this breach of the Treaty to go by without any protest whatever, just because of the temporary inconvenience of making a protest, as I understood my hon. Friend suggested? It is obviously a case of very profound principle, which must be preserved to the full. We may say with pride that in this country such a


thing could not happen under a democracy, because a democracy would not permit that type of warfare, and I think that is true, but we have to face the fact that there are countries in Europe where such methods of warfare can be permitted, and we have to see what can be done about it. My hon. Friend, in an intervention just now, said it is not the slightest good making conventions for this purpose, or making rules, and that, when people go to war, they will always break all rules, or so I understood him. That may be true, but to my mind that is no reason for not attempting to do it. We regard ourselves as a civilised world.

Mr. BOOTHBY: indicated dissent.

Viscount CRANBORNE: My hon. Friend may not regard himself as a member of a civilised world, but I think we ought, if we can, to improve the world and make it a better and a more habitable world, especially when the alternative is so tremendous and so grave. So much for the future, but in the meantime, as regards the present action, I suggest to the House that it is essential that the Government should stand by the policy which my right hon. Friend adumbrated on Monday. We must try to obtain a time limit on the conciliation procedure, and a short time limit. If it fails, the question of a meeting of the Committee of Eighteen must be envisaged again. I was asked by an hon. Member whether His Majesty's Government would support the oil embargo. They have already declared that they will support an oil embargo if it was generally supported, and we still hold that opinion.

Mr. EMMOTT: Even though it must be ineffective?

Viscount CRANBORNE: It is also a question of moral and psychological effect. It is not true that, because it may not have any material effect, it will have no effect.
I would like to say one or two words of a general nature. I am sorry that the time alloted to me is not sufficient to answer other points which were raised. Hon. Members have been extra-

ordinarily kind and sympathetic to the attitude of the Government—even hon. Members on the other side. It has been an interesting Debate from that point of view, and it has not shown great party bias. There has been a certain suggestion in some of the speeches that the Government have not done all they ought to have done. I sometimes have a feeling that in the minds of hon. Members there is an impression that action under the League has a sort of Jekyll and Hyde character that when it has the character of Jekyll it does all sorts of beneficent things for the world, and that when it is Hyde it is the British Government working behind the scenes. That is not true. It is the same organs that do the good things and what hon. Members think the foolish things. We all recognise that in this case it has not been entirely successful. Nobody views the situation in Abyssinia with any feeling of smug satisfaction, but that is no reason for not going on supporting the principles of the League. It is only by those means that we can get through the period of desolation in which we are struggling and come through into an age in which, in the words I once heard used by the late Lord Balfour, boundaries between the nations are not the lines that divide them but the links that bind them together.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. SANDYS: In the two minutes which are left, I wish to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that a week ago a few hon. Members and I put down a Motion on the Order Paper asking for the revision and modification of the Anglo-Argentine Trade Agreement on the first possible occasion, owing to its detrimental effects upon home agriculture and upon Empire trade. As a result of this treaty the home farmer has been badly hit and Empire trade has been seriously affected. I have not time to elaborate the reasons, but I will only say in a word that Great Britain has not had a square deal. According to a statement made by a prominent member of the Argentine Delegation with reference to the effect of the treaty dealing with meat during the last three years, the Argentine had obtained all the advantages which she could reasonably hope for and he frankly admitted that it was only right that


Britain should ask for better terms, and that any reasonable man would admit the fairness of such a request. My time has come to an end, but I do urge upon His Majesty's Government to listen attentively to the appeal of the British farmer.

It being Five of the Clock Mr. DEPUTYSPRAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 8th April, till Tuesday, 21st April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.